O'Beirne v. Carey

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Beirne v. Carey

150 N.Y.S. 666

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 150 N.Y.S. 666 (O'Beirne v. Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Beirne v. Carey, 150 N.Y.S. 666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

[1] No appeal will lie from a judgment taken by default, and the appeal from the judgment must therefore be dismissed.

[2] Plaintiff sues for services rendered by his two assignors, as dentists, to defendant and his wife. The rendition of the services and the value was proved at the inquest, but it does not appear that the plaintiff’s assignors were duly licensed to practice their profession, as provided by the laws of this state; consequently there was no cause of action proven against the defendant, and the order denying the motion to open his default must be reversed.

[667]*667[3] We are further supported in this determination by the fact that defendant presented a good excuse for his nonappearance; i. e., a brief and a temporary absence from the city on business.

Order .reversed, judgment vacated, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

[1] No appeal will lie from a judgment taken by default, and the appeal from the judgment must therefore be dismissed.

[2] Plaintiff sues for services rendered by his two assignors, as dentists, to defendant and his wife. The rendition of the services and the value was proved at the inquest, but it does not appear that the plaintiff’s assignors were duly licensed to practice their profession, as provided by the laws of this state; consequently there was no cause of action proven against the defendant, and the order denying the motion to open his default must be reversed.

[667]*667[3] We are further supported in this determination by the fact that defendant presented a good excuse for his nonappearance; i. e., a brief and a temporary absence from the city on business.

Order .reversed, judgment vacated, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 N.Y.S. 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obeirne-v-carey-nyappterm-1914.