Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided April 15, 1886·Published

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

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

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463 (Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.