Mix v. White

New York Court of Common Pleas

Mix v. White

1 E.D. Smith 614

DecidedDecember 15, 1852

StatusPublished

This text of 1 E.D. Smith 614 (Mix v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mix v. White, 1 E.D. Smith 614 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court. Daly, J.

Whether we have the power to relieve under the § 366, after the defendant has appeared and answered, where the judgment has been taken by default, through a misapprehension on the part of the defendant, as to the time of adjournment, it is not necessary to decide; but it must appear that manifest injustice has been done. The defendant must satisfy the court by affidavit, that he had a valid defence, in whole or in part, to the action. He merely sets up by the affidavit of his attorney, that he put in an answer. This is not sufficient. He must swear upon this application that the defence so set up was true in fact. He has not done so, but on the contrary, the respondent swears that the defence set up was without foundation. Upon the proof, therefore, before us, we are bound to conclude that the judgment was right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court. Daly, J.

Whether we have the power to relieve under the § 366, after the defendant has appeared and answered, where the judgment has been taken by default, through a misapprehension on the part of the defendant, as to the time of adjournment, it is not necessary to decide; but it must appear that manifest injustice has been done. The defendant must satisfy the court by affidavit, that he had a valid defence, in whole or in part, to the action. He merely sets up by the affidavit of his attorney, that he put in an answer. This is not sufficient. He must swear upon this application that the defence so set up was true in fact. He has not done so, but on the contrary, the respondent swears that the defence set up was without foundation. Upon the proof, therefore, before us, we are bound to conclude that the judgment was right.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 E.D. Smith 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mix-v-white-nyctcompl-1852.