Bishop v. Fuller

City of New York Municipal Court

Bishop v. Fuller

34 Misc. 813, 68 N.Y.S. 1131

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 Misc. 813 (Bishop v. Fuller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bishop v. Fuller, 34 Misc. 813, 68 N.Y.S. 1131 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Hay, 1886, nearly fifteen years ago, a default was noted in the above action and an inquest taken, but no [814]*814judgment was ever entered thereon. The plaintiff moved, after that long lapse of time, for an order that the above-entitled action and all further proceedings therein be carried on in her married name, she having since the default was noted married a Mr. Nicholas. No reason was assigned for the long delay, and, although the papers on the motion and on this appeal appear to have been served on the defendant’s attorney of record in 1886, no appearance has been made on her behalf either on the motion or on the hearing of the appeal. The claim is stale and we believe that the order of the Special Term in denying the plaintiff’s application should be affirmed. No costs.

Present: Fitzsimoks, Oh. J., Coklan and O’Dwyeb, JJ.

Order affirmed, no costs. ■

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

Per Curiam.

In Hay, 1886, nearly fifteen years ago, a default was noted in the above action and an inquest taken, but no [814]*814judgment was ever entered thereon. The plaintiff moved, after that long lapse of time, for an order that the above-entitled action and all further proceedings therein be carried on in her married name, she having since the default was noted married a Mr. Nicholas. No reason was assigned for the long delay, and, although the papers on the motion and on this appeal appear to have been served on the defendant’s attorney of record in 1886, no appearance has been made on her behalf either on the motion or on the hearing of the appeal. The claim is stale and we believe that the order of the Special Term in denying the plaintiff’s application should be affirmed. No costs.

Present: Fitzsimoks, Oh. J., Coklan and O’Dwyeb, JJ.

Order affirmed, no costs. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 813, 68 N.Y.S. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-fuller-nynyccityct-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack