Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch

144 N.Y.S. 552

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 144 N.Y.S. 552 (Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch) 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

Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch, 144 N.Y.S. 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

The defendant in the case procured a commission to be taken. When the case was called on June 18th, the defendant requested an adjournment on the ground that the commission had not yet been returned. The trial justice stated that the commission had been returned two days before, and referred to an indorsement on the commission as showing that the commission had been returned on June 16th. As a matter of fact, the commission had been returned only that morning, and the indorsement so stated. This fact, in connection with the other circumstances in the case, justified the defendant’s attorney in expecting a reasonable postponement, and no default should have been taken.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion to open default granted. Appeal from judgment dismissed. All concur.

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

LEHMAN, J.

The defendant in the case procured a commission to be taken. When the case was called on June 18th, the defendant requested an adjournment on the ground that the commission had not yet been returned. The trial justice stated that the commission had been returned two days before, and referred to an indorsement on the commission as showing that the commission had been returned on June 16th. As a matter of fact, the commission had been returned only that morning, and the indorsement so stated. This fact, in connection with the other circumstances in the case, justified the defendant’s attorney in expecting a reasonable postponement, and no default should have been taken.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion to open default granted. Appeal from judgment dismissed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 N.Y.S. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prever-goldring-lumber-co-v-ravitch-nyappterm-1913.