Charles Wissman Co. v. Stokes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charles Wissman Co. v. Stokes

142 N.Y.S. 1112, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6784

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 142 N.Y.S. 1112 (Charles Wissman Co. v. Stokes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Wissman Co. v. Stokes, 142 N.Y.S. 1112, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There are two appeals in this case. The first comes up upon a notice of appeal dated February 20, 1913, and is an appeal from an order entered on January 31, 1913, which denied plaintiff’s motion to open its defaulti The other appeals are' from orders made in the same action, but subsequent to the order above mentioned. Under the decision in Colwell v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 57 Misc. Rep. 623, 108 N. Y. Supp. 540, and Steinman v. Blumenfeld, 61 Misc. Rep. 220, 113 N. Y. Supp. 550, the proceedings in this action subsequent to the granting of the order appealed from were unauthorized. We are of the opinion that the motion made by plaintiff to open its default should have been granted. The reasons of the plaintiff for failing to appear at the time the action was dismissed were set forth in the moving affidavits, and were sufficient to excuse its default. Order of January 31, 1913, reversed with costs. Judgment vacated and set aside, and new trial ordered. Appeals from orders of April 4 and 11, 1913, dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

There are two appeals in this case. The first comes up upon a notice of appeal dated February 20, 1913, and is an appeal from an order entered on January 31, 1913, which denied plaintiff’s motion to open its defaulti The other appeals are' from orders made in the same action, but subsequent to the order above mentioned. Under the decision in Colwell v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 57 Misc. Rep. 623, 108 N. Y. Supp. 540, and Steinman v. Blumenfeld, 61 Misc. Rep. 220, 113 N. Y. Supp. 550, the proceedings in this action subsequent to the granting of the order appealed from were unauthorized. We are of the opinion that the motion made by plaintiff to open its default should have been granted. The reasons of the plaintiff for failing to appear at the time the action was dismissed were set forth in the moving affidavits, and were sufficient to excuse its default. Order of January 31, 1913, reversed with costs. Judgment vacated and set aside, and new trial ordered. Appeals from orders of April 4 and 11, 1913, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 N.Y.S. 1112, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-wissman-co-v-stokes-nyappdiv-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack