Board of Commissioners v. Hollister

2 Hilt. 588
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedApril 2, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Hilt. 588 (Board of Commissioners v. Hollister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Commissioners v. Hollister, 2 Hilt. 588 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Opinion

Hilton, J.

Upon a motion to open a judgment entered against a defendant by default, and through his inadvertence, we do not determine absolutely whether the defence he desires to interpose will necessarily prevail at the trial, but merely look into it so far as to be able to say that it is not clearly frivolous ; [589]*589and then if, in addition, we are satisfied that it is set up in good faith, and the neglect of the party is satisfactorily excused, it is almost a matter of course to permit him to come in and answer.

I see no reason for departing from this general practice in the present case, and therefore must decline passing upon the defence disclosed in the motion papers, as requested by the plaintiff’s counsel, and content myself with merely saying that, in my opinion, the defence is clearly not frivolous.

'The motion, therefore, to vacate the judgment, and for leave to answer, is granted on payment of $10 costs of the motion, and the disbursements in entering the judgment.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Griswold Linseed Oil Co. v. Lee
47 N.W. 955 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Hilt. 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-commissioners-v-hollister-nyctcompl-1860.