Barheydt v. Adams

New York Supreme Court

Barheydt v. Adams

1 Wend. 101

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1828

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 Wend. 101 (Barheydt v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barheydt v. Adams, 1 Wend. 101 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J,

The proceedings in relation to the vacatur of the judgment of 1816, were wholly irregular. The defendants in the original suit were entitled to personal notice of the application to vacate the judgment. Service of notice in the clerk’s office, of proceedings after judgment, cannot be considered as due notice to a party. The defendant now before the court was also entitled to notice; for, although he could not be directly affected by the enforcement of that judgment, inasmuch as he had not been arrested, and therefore might be said not to be a parly to the record, still he is a party in interest, and is entitled to be heard. Besides, the plaintiff having waited more than five years to apply for a vacatur of his judgment, was not entitled to make that motion. The rights and responsibilities of the defendants had become irreversibly fixed, as a writ of error could not be brought. The defendant now before the court has, therefore, an interest in maintaining that judgment. The motion is granted, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J,

The proceedings in relation to the vacatur of the judgment of 1816, were wholly irregular. The defendants in the original suit were entitled to personal notice of the application to vacate the judgment. Service of notice in the clerk’s office, of proceedings after judgment, cannot be considered as due notice to a party. The defendant now before the court was also entitled to notice; for, although he could not be directly affected by the enforcement of that judgment, inasmuch as he had not been arrested, and therefore might be said not to be a parly to the record, still he is a party in interest, and is entitled to be heard. Besides, the plaintiff having waited more than five years to apply for a vacatur of his judgment, was not entitled to make that motion. The rights and responsibilities of the defendants had become irreversibly fixed, as a writ of error could not be brought. The defendant now before the court has, therefore, an interest in maintaining that judgment. The motion is granted, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wend. 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barheydt-v-adams-nysupct-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack