Jackson ex dem. Rosekrans v. Stiles
This text of 1 Cai. Cas. 503 (Jackson ex dem. Rosekrans v. Stiles) 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.
Opinion
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]*636be done without injury to the plaintiff’s claim, than it is willing, in other cases, to proceed.
Motion granted.
Where the default was regular, and no trial had been lost, the court recognizing the case in the text, upon an affidavit of merits, set it aside, and admitted the tenant to defend. Jackson v. Stiles, 4 Johns. Rep. 489.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Cai. Cas. 503, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-rosekrans-v-stiles-nysupct-1804.