Van Hoven v. Faust Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Hoven v. Faust Co.

111 N.Y.S. 837

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.Y.S. 837 (Van Hoven v. Faust Co.) 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

Van Hoven v. Faust Co., 111 N.Y.S. 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facility with which defendant has repeatedly permitted its default to be taken, and the feebleness of its excuses therefor, suggest the suspicion that the real object'in view is delay. There are also technical defects in the moving papers. However, the appellate court is reluctant to deprive defendant of its day in court by affirming the order denying defendant’s motion to open its default. Somewhat heavy terms, nevertheless, must be imposed as a condition for opening the default.

The order is reversed without costs, and the motion granted, on payment by defendant to plaintiff of all costs in the case to date and the giving of an undertaking in the amount of $70 to secure plaintiff’s claim.

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

PER CURIAM.

The facility with which defendant has repeatedly permitted its default to be taken, and the feebleness of its excuses therefor, suggest the suspicion that the real object'in view is delay. There are also technical defects in the moving papers. However, the appellate court is reluctant to deprive defendant of its day in court by affirming the order denying defendant’s motion to open its default. Somewhat heavy terms, nevertheless, must be imposed as a condition for opening the default.

The order is reversed without costs, and the motion granted, on payment by defendant to plaintiff of all costs in the case to date and the giving of an undertaking in the amount of $70 to secure plaintiff’s claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.Y.S. 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-hoven-v-faust-co-nyappterm-1908.