Gumbinner v. Burns

New York Supreme Court

Gumbinner v. Burns

53 Misc. 642, 103 N.Y.S. 218

DecidedMarch 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Misc. 642 (Gumbinner v. Burns) 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

Gumbinner v. Burns, 53 Misc. 642, 103 N.Y.S. 218 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The defendants have appealed from a judgment entered against them by default, and also from an order denying a motion to open the default and vacate the judgment. The action is for goods sold and delivered to the defendants as copartners. We think that the motion to open the default should have been granted. On the day before the inquest was taken, defendants’ counsel had been notified to go on with the trial of a case in the Supreme Court on the next day, December nineteenth. It also appears that defendants’ attorney had to answer a motion on the calendar of Part One, Special Term of the Supreme Court, on the nineteenth. In view of these facts we think the motion to open the default should have been granted. The order denying the motion to open the default and vacate the judgment is reversed, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs.

Present: Gildebsleeve, Davis and Hendbick, JJ.

Order denying motion to open default and vacate judgment reversed; appeal from judgment dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

The defendants have appealed from a judgment entered against them by default, and also from an order denying a motion to open the default and vacate the judgment. The action is for goods sold and delivered to the defendants as copartners. We think that the motion to open the default should have been granted. On the day before the inquest was taken, defendants’ counsel had been notified to go on with the trial of a case in the Supreme Court on the next day, December nineteenth. It also appears that defendants’ attorney had to answer a motion on the calendar of Part One, Special Term of the Supreme Court, on the nineteenth. In view of these facts we think the motion to open the default should have been granted. The order denying the motion to open the default and vacate the judgment is reversed, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs.

Present: Gildebsleeve, Davis and Hendbick, JJ.

Order denying motion to open default and vacate judgment reversed; appeal from judgment dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Misc. 642, 103 N.Y.S. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gumbinner-v-burns-nysupct-1907.