Scheckter v. Reiter

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Scheckter v. Reiter

113 N.Y.S. 729

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 729 (Scheckter v. Reiter) 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

Scheckter v. Reiter, 113 N.Y.S. 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM".

Both the judgment and order must be affirmed. The motion was properly denied, for the reason that there was no default. Upon the day set "for trial the defendant applied for an adjournment. He states in his brief that an affidavit setting forth the grounds of his request was filed; but no such affidavit appears in the return, and we are therefore unable to determine whether or not such application should have been granted. When his request for an adjournment was denied, he remained in court and took part in the trial, by interposing objections to questions and cross-examining witnesses. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that there was a default. An examination of the testimony shows that the plaintiff proved a cause of action against the defendant for the amount of the judgment rendered.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM".

Both the judgment and order must be affirmed. The motion was properly denied, for the reason that there was no default. Upon the day set "for trial the defendant applied for an adjournment. He states in his brief that an affidavit setting forth the grounds of his request was filed; but no such affidavit appears in the return, and we are therefore unable to determine whether or not such application should have been granted. When his request for an adjournment was denied, he remained in court and took part in the trial, by interposing objections to questions and cross-examining witnesses. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that there was a default. An examination of the testimony shows that the plaintiff proved a cause of action against the defendant for the amount of the judgment rendered.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheckter-v-reiter-nyappterm-1908.