Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay

The Superior Court of New York City

Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedApril 15, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463 (Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay) 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

Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay, 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe discretion of tbe judge was properly' used. It would not bave been proper to have opened tbe default. Tbe statements as to tbe reason for tbe defendant not appearing are vague and indefinite, and tbe affidavit of merits was more than counterbalanced by tbe plaintiff’s affidavits. Tbe affidavit of merits would be true if tbe plaintiff bad made an insignificant error in bis demand.

Order affirmedj with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Tbe discretion of tbe judge was properly' used. It would not bave been proper to have opened tbe default. Tbe statements as to tbe reason for tbe defendant not appearing are vague and indefinite, and tbe affidavit of merits was more than counterbalanced by tbe plaintiff’s affidavits. Tbe affidavit of merits would be true if tbe plaintiff bad made an insignificant error in bis demand.

Order affirmedj with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-prouse-cooper-co-v-findlay-nysuperctnyc-1886.