Boyd & Phelps v. Seely
2 Wend. 242
Opinion
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
Boyd & Phelps v. Seely, 2 Wend. 242 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).
2 Wend. 242 (Boyd & Phelps v. Seely) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gould v. Spencer
2 Cai. Cas. 109 (New York Supreme Court, 1804)