Boyd & Phelps v. Seely

New York Supreme Court

Boyd & Phelps v. Seely

2 Wend. 242

DecidedFebruary 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Wend. 242 (Boyd & Phelps v. Seely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd & Phelps v. Seely, 2 Wend. 242 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Sutherland, J.

It was irregular to enter a rule for interlocutory judgment until four days in term had intervened after the entry of the default. (8th Rule of April term, 1796.) Besides, there could not have been notice of assessment in this ease, which, and notice of inquiry, cannot be given until after default, though it may be given previous to the entry of rule for interlocutory judgment. (2 Caines, 109. 12 Johns. R. 151.)

Motion granted.

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

By the Court, Sutherland, J.

It was irregular to enter a rule for interlocutory judgment until four days in term had intervened after the entry of the default. (8th Rule of April term, 1796.) Besides, there could not have been notice of assessment in this ease, which, and notice of inquiry, cannot be given until after default, though it may be given previous to the entry of rule for interlocutory judgment. (2 Caines, 109. 12 Johns. R. 151.)

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Wend. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-phelps-v-seely-nysupct-1829.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack