Bass v. Carley

96 N.Y.S. 1023
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 21, 1905·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

96 N.Y.S. 1023 (Bass v. Carley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bon Homme County Bank v. Bainbridge
200 N.W. 107 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1924)
Bancroft-Graham v. Halley
80 Misc. 191 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1913)
Levine v. Munchik
51 Misc. 556 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)