Kitson v. Blake

New York Supreme Court

Kitson v. Blake

14 N.Y.S. 446, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 45, 60 Hun 579

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 446 (Kitson v. Blake) 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.

Bluebook

Kitson v. Blake, 14 N.Y.S. 446, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 45, 60 Hun 579 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

These are motions to set aside inquests taken at a circuit court ■field in Westchester county. It is evident, from an examination of the pampers on this appeal, that there was no merit in the defense, and that the whole ¡.effort of the defendant was to secure delay. Hot only does it appear that the fnotes sued'.'úpon were, given for a valid consideration, but liability had been .conceded by the defendant. If the counsel for the defendant had exercised .due diligence,' he could have reached the court at White Plains at the time the case was called for trial. He was represented, however, and what took place must be regarded as a trial. It does not appear that there was not a ¡legal panel of jurors present to try one of the cases when called; besides, no challenge'was made that was sufficient to raise that question. The plaintiff was no .way in fault for the absence of defendants’ witnesses, and no motion was m.ade to postpone on the ground, of absence of witnesses. In one ¡ case thqre 'was no appearance at the circuit, and default and inquest were duly takén. Such being the case, it was incumbent in that case to show merits, which was not done. We do not think there was any irregularity in either case sufficient to warrant the granting of the motions; neither do we /.think there is ."any merit in the defense in either action. Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Pratt, J.

These are motions to set aside inquests taken at a circuit court ■field in Westchester county. It is evident, from an examination of the pampers on this appeal, that there was no merit in the defense, and that the whole ¡.effort of the defendant was to secure delay. Hot only does it appear that the fnotes sued'.'úpon were, given for a valid consideration, but liability had been .conceded by the defendant. If the counsel for the defendant had exercised .due diligence,' he could have reached the court at White Plains at the time the case was called for trial. He was represented, however, and what took place must be regarded as a trial. It does not appear that there was not a ¡legal panel of jurors present to try one of the cases when called; besides, no challenge'was made that was sufficient to raise that question. The plaintiff was no .way in fault for the absence of defendants’ witnesses, and no motion was m.ade to postpone on the ground, of absence of witnesses. In one ¡ case thqre 'was no appearance at the circuit, and default and inquest were duly takén. Such being the case, it was incumbent in that case to show merits, which was not done. We do not think there was any irregularity in either case sufficient to warrant the granting of the motions; neither do we /.think there is ."any merit in the defense in either action. Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 446, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 45, 60 Hun 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitson-v-blake-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack