Jurgenson v. Hamilton

5 Abb. N. Cas. 149
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Barrett, J.

The defendant should not be harassed by successive examinations upon the same judgment. It is evident that he was fully examined, and if the proceedings were abandoned it was probably because the plaintiff has exhausted all remedies and reasonable efforts in that direction. It is only when proceedings have inadvertently fallen through, that a second order without freshly-acquired property, is allowed. A party cannot, after examining the matter for eight hours, drop the matter and commence de novo, when[151] ever it suits Ms conveMence. The order must be dismissed with $10.00 costs .to be deducted from the judgment.

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

Jurgenson v. Hamilton, 5 Abb. N. Cas. 149 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

5 Abb. N. Cas. 149 (Jurgenson v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walker v. Cram
157 A.D. 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Weiss v. Ashman
32 N.Y.S. 161 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)