Vanderheyden v. Gardenier
This text of 9 Johns. 79 (Vanderheyden v. Gardenier) 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
If the plaintiff who sues out a scire facias to revive a judgment, does not proceed upon it within a year and a day, it'is a discontinuance of it, aud the plaintiff must commence by scire facias de novo. So, if he does not sue out execution on a judgment on scire facias within a year, he must revive it again, (Impey’s K. B. 314. Tidd’s K. B. 1009.) This case comes within the rule; for between the entry of the default, and the entry of the judgment, there was an interval of two years and five months. This amounted to a discontinuance of the proceedings, and the subsequent entry of the judgment was irregular.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Johns. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderheyden-v-gardenier-nysupct-1812.