Schermerhorn v. Van Valkenburgh
7 Cow. 519
Opinion
The order to stay proceedings on the part of the plaintiff would not, per se, suspend the running of the rule to rejoin; the time allowed by which expired with the 15th of August. The order to stay, therefore, having ceased to operate before the 20th, the default of that'day was regular. And we can only interfere and set it aside on terms, which are payment of the costs.
Rule accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schermerhorn v. Van Valkenburgh, 7 Cow. 519 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).
7 Cow. 519 (Schermerhorn v. Van Valkenburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Allen v. Fink
211 A.D. 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Georgia Lumber Co. v. Strong
3 How. Pr. 246 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)