Jackson ex dem. Mentz v. Stiles

4 Johns. 489
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1809·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The excuse given by the attorney of the defendant, for not entering into the consent rule in season, is frivolous and inadmissible. But here the tenant swears to merits ; and as no trial has been lost, we will not let the possession be changed, in an action of ejectment, without an opportunity to the tenant to defend it. It was said, in the case of Jackson, ex dem. Rosekrans, v. Stiles, (1 Caines, 503.) that the court would set aside a default, to protect the possession of the tenant, in an action of ejectment, when they would not do it in any other action. We, therefore, grant the y motion, on payment of costs, and on the tenant’s entering into the consent rule, and pleading within 10 days, so ■that the cause may be tried at the ensuing circuit in Ulster.

Rule granted.

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

Jackson ex dem. Mentz v. Stiles, 4 Johns. 489 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

4 Johns. 489 (Jackson ex dem. Mentz v. Stiles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moses v. Central Park, North & East River Railroad
23 N.Y.S. 23 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Territory v. Taylor
1 Dakota 479 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1877)
Fratt v. Woodward
32 Cal. 219 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Dickey v. Lyon
19 Iowa 544 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1865)