Candee v. Ogilvie

5 Duer 658
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedFebruary 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Duer 658 (Candee v. Ogilvie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Candee v. Ogilvie, 5 Duer 658 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

Opinion

Bosworth, J.,

(with the concurrence of the other Justices,) held, as above stated. He held, that $12 could be allowed under sub. 1 of section 307, in those actions only, in which an application for judgment, when a defendant fails to answer, must be made to the court. In all others, only $7 can be allowed whether an answer or demurrer is, or is not, interposed.

That the plaintiff could have obtained a judgment without noticing the action for trial or placing it on the calendar. And having, in fact, obtained a judgment, on a motion made to a Judge out of court, under section 247 of the Code, he was not at liberty to take the ground that the cause had been necessarily placed on the calendar, whatever might have been his rights, if it had been called in its order on the calendar, on due notice of trial, and a verdict had been taken, then before the court, or a jury.

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

Related

Bernhard v. Kapp
11 Abb. Pr. 342 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Duer 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candee-v-ogilvie-nysuperctnyc-1856.