Valkenburgh v. Dederick
1 Johns. Cas. 133
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
Valkenburgh v. Dederick, 1 Johns. Cas. 133 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).
1 Johns. Cas. 133 (Valkenburgh v. Dederick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Monroe v. . Upton
50 N.Y. 593 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
United States v. Garlinghouse
25 F. Cas. 1258 (N.D. New York, 1870)
Price v. Peters
15 Abb. Pr. 197 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1862)