Bass v. Carley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bass v. Carley

96 N.Y.S. 1023

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 N.Y.S. 1023 (Bass v. Carley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bass v. Carley, 96 N.Y.S. 1023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The motion to open the default was properly denied. In view of the fact that the defendant permitted five weeks to elapse from the entry of judgment before making his application, and of his having been examined in supplementary proceedings, and having requested and obtained an adjournment of his further examination in those proceedings, there is little doubt that the motion was an afterthought, and not deemed to be necessary for the protection of any substantial rights possessed, by the defendant and affected by the judgment. The omission of an affidavit of merits was a defect which might, in a proper case, have been supplied on a renewal of the motion; but, under the circumstances, there was no error in the withholding of leave to renew. It is to be noted that the record before us contains nothing to suggest that the proof upon the inquest was at variance with the pleadings, as contended by the appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The motion to open the default was properly denied. In view of the fact that the defendant permitted five weeks to elapse from the entry of judgment before making his application, and of his having been examined in supplementary proceedings, and having requested and obtained an adjournment of his further examination in those proceedings, there is little doubt that the motion was an afterthought, and not deemed to be necessary for the protection of any substantial rights possessed, by the defendant and affected by the judgment. The omission of an affidavit of merits was a defect which might, in a proper case, have been supplied on a renewal of the motion; but, under the circumstances, there was no error in the withholding of leave to renew. It is to be noted that the record before us contains nothing to suggest that the proof upon the inquest was at variance with the pleadings, as contended by the appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.Y.S. 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bass-v-carley-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack