Beebe v. Marvin

The Superior Court of New York City

Beebe v. Marvin

17 Abb. Pr. 194

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided December 15, 1863·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court.*—Robertson, J.

The defendant appeared in the action in which the judgment sued on was recovered. He procured delay three times, in pleading in this action for order to have time to obtain a copy of the judgment. A certified copy of the judgment is produced, and his only answer is ignorance of all matters charged in the complaint. It is not enough in such case, where the presumption is of knowledge (1 Voor. Code, 7 ed., 203, cases cited; Richardson a. Wilton, 4 Sandf, 708), simply to rest on ignorance. Every presumption is in favor of the jurisdiction of the court of Kansas (Harrod a. Barretto, 1 Hall, 155); and there was ho error in the order striking out the answer for that reason. The plaintiff was not barred from making the motion by having noticed the issues for trial. He was entitled to the earliest disposition of a sham defence he could get. Kellogg a. Baker (15 Abbotts' Pr., 286), is not against this view.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Footnotes

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

By the Court.*—Robertson, J.

The defendant appeared in the action in which the judgment sued on was recovered. He procured delay three times, in pleading in this action for order to have time to obtain a copy of the judgment. A certified copy of the judgment is produced, and his only answer is ignorance of all matters charged in the complaint. It is not enough in such case, where the presumption is of knowledge (1 Voor. Code, 7 ed., 203, cases cited; Richardson a. Wilton, 4 Sandf, 708), simply to rest on ignorance. Every presumption is in favor of the jurisdiction of the court of Kansas (Harrod a. Barretto, 1 Hall, 155); and there was ho error in the order striking out the answer for that reason. The plaintiff was not barred from making the motion by having noticed the issues for trial. He was entitled to the earliest disposition of a sham defence he could get. Kellogg a. Baker (15 Abbotts' Pr., 286), is not against this view.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Footnotes

Beebe v. Marvin, 17 Abb. Pr. 194 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1863).

Pincite

17 Abb. Pr. 194 (Beebe v. Marvin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related