Jackson ex dem. Rosekrans v. Stiles

1 Cai. Cas. 503, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 317
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1804·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The proceedings on the part of the defendant certainly have not been perfectly regular, for they ought, in strictness, to have been sent to the agent of the plaintiff’s attorney. It appears, however, that every measure necessary for the defence was actually taken, though from an idea on one hand of the clerk of the defendant’s attorney, that the plaintiff resided near Albany, and a mistake on the other, in the office of the clerk of the court, the papers never reached their proper destination. In ejectment, as it is the creature of the court, every thing will be done to promote the justice of the case, according to right, and the court will go further to protect the possession, when it can [636] be done without injury to the plaintiff’s claim, than it is willing, in other cases, to proceed.(a) As, therefore, there was a full knowledge in October last of an intention to make this application, and the transactions are all of a recent date, we are of opinion that the default entered against the casual ejector, the judgment thereon, and the writ of possession sued out, be set aside, and a writ of restitution issue, on payment of costs.

Motion granted.

Footnotes

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

Jackson ex dem. Rosekrans v. Stiles, 1 Cai. Cas. 503, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 317 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1804).

1 Cai. Cas. 503 (Jackson ex dem. Rosekrans v. Stiles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Klinefelter's Lessee v. Carey
3 G. & J. 349 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1831)
Jackson ex dem. Mentz v. Stiles
4 Johns. 489 (New York Supreme Court, 1809)