Valkenburgh v. Dederick
This text of 1 Johns. Cas. 133 (Valkenburgh v. Dederick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant has shown no reason why he did not give his discharge in evidence, or plead it puis ■ dar. cont. and having neglected to make his proper defence, we will not interfere to help him.
In an ordinary case, and with a, more meritorious defence, the court would not relieve after so great a laches.
Rule refused.
Cross v. Hobson, 2 Caines’ R. 102. Ackerman v. Van Houton, 5 Halstead, 332. Mechanics’ Bank v. Hazard, 9 Johns. R. 392. And see Cost v. Riley, 18 id. 54 ; and Desobry v. Morange, id. 336.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Johns. Cas. 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valkenburgh-v-dederick-nysupct-1799.