Mordant v. Niles
This text of 1 Abb. N. Cas. 300 (Mordant v. Niles) 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 provisions of 2 R. S. 233, §§ 44, 46, only apply to civil actions in county justices’ courts. There is no similar provision in the district court act, nor in the Revised Statutes under the head of summary proceedings. On the contrary, in 2 R. S. 513 (or 6th ed., vol. 3, p. 826), sections 33 and 34, we find the words, “at the time appointed in the said summons.” This being so, Niles was regular; and equity has never exercised jurisdiction in these proceedings merely to open a default. Mordant had ample time to appear and defend, and there was no fraud in the conduct of the proceedings. Besides, Mordant does not come in with clean hands, in yiew of the manner in wMch he obtained possession. The [302]*302motion to continue the injunction is denied, and the temporary injunction dissolved, with ten dollars costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Abb. N. Cas. 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mordant-v-niles-nysupct-1876.