Silleck v. Dahut

City of New York Municipal Court

Silleck v. Dahut

35 Misc. 134, 71 N.Y.S. 316

DecidedMay 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 134 (Silleck v. Dahut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Silleck v. Dahut, 35 Misc. 134, 71 N.Y.S. 316 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff had a right to return the affidavit, and order extending defendant’s time to plead for failure to comply with the requirements of rule 19 of the General Rules of Practice, and, having done so within twenty-four hours, the defendant was in default on the 11th day of January, 1901; being in default, it was well within the discretion of the Special Term to impose, as a condition for compelling the acceptance of the defendant’s answer, the payment of costs and the giving of security. Furthermore, it appears that the defendant has complied with the terms of the order by paying the costs as taxed in the judgment-roll and serving his answer. By submitting to the terms of the order, the defendant waived his right to appeal therefrom.

Order appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and O’Dwyer, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff had a right to return the affidavit, and order extending defendant’s time to plead for failure to comply with the requirements of rule 19 of the General Rules of Practice, and, having done so within twenty-four hours, the defendant was in default on the 11th day of January, 1901; being in default, it was well within the discretion of the Special Term to impose, as a condition for compelling the acceptance of the defendant’s answer, the payment of costs and the giving of security. Furthermore, it appears that the defendant has complied with the terms of the order by paying the costs as taxed in the judgment-roll and serving his answer. By submitting to the terms of the order, the defendant waived his right to appeal therefrom.

Order appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and O’Dwyer, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 134, 71 N.Y.S. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silleck-v-dahut-nynyccityct-1901.