Newman v. Woodcock

New York County Courts

Newman v. Woodcock

38 N.Y.S. 957, 16 Misc. 142

CourtNew York County Courts

DecidedFebruary 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 N.Y.S. 957 (Newman v. Woodcock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newman v. Woodcock, 38 N.Y.S. 957, 16 Misc. 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNMORE, J.

The second adjournment was unauthorized. The justice had no right to grant plaintiff’s application for a second adjournment. By the provisions of the Code the plaintiff is entitled to an adjournment only upon the return day of the summons. Section 2960. When a commission is granted, a further adjournment may be had to procure the execution and return of the commission. Code, § 2983. Here the adjournment was granted on plaintiff’s motion and against the defendants’ objection for more than eight days, and was after one adjournment had been- had. The adjournment was, therefore, irregular, and, as between the parties, the case was out of court. The respondent claims that the irregularity was0 waived because a condition, to wit, the payment of the defendants’ witness fees, was imposed; and cites Weeks v. Lyon, 18 Barb. 530; Hart v. Small, 4 Paige, 288; Clarke v. Meigs, 10 Bosw. 337; and Peck v. McAlpine, 3 Caines, 166b. Those authorities do not support the respondent’s contention. The fact that the court imposed a condition would not bind the defendants without their consent. As the judgment must be reversed because of this irregularity, it is unnecessary to examine the other questions in the case.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

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

DUNMORE, J.

The second adjournment was unauthorized. The justice had no right to grant plaintiff’s application for a second adjournment. By the provisions of the Code the plaintiff is entitled to an adjournment only upon the return day of the summons. Section 2960. When a commission is granted, a further adjournment may be had to procure the execution and return of the commission. Code, § 2983. Here the adjournment was granted on plaintiff’s motion and against the defendants’ objection for more than eight days, and was after one adjournment had been- had. The adjournment was, therefore, irregular, and, as between the parties, the case was out of court. The respondent claims that the irregularity was0 waived because a condition, to wit, the payment of the defendants’ witness fees, was imposed; and cites Weeks v. Lyon, 18 Barb. 530; Hart v. Small, 4 Paige, 288; Clarke v. Meigs, 10 Bosw. 337; and Peck v. McAlpine, 3 Caines, 166b. Those authorities do not support the respondent’s contention. The fact that the court imposed a condition would not bind the defendants without their consent. As the judgment must be reversed because of this irregularity, it is unnecessary to examine the other questions in the case.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.Y.S. 957, 16 Misc. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-woodcock-nycountyct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack