Vanderheyden v. Gardenier

9 Johns. 79
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Vanderheyden v. Gardenier, 9 Johns. 79 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 79 (Vanderheyden v. Gardenier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Collins v. McBlair
29 App. D.C. 354 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1907)
Giddings v. Whittlesey & Chittenden
2 Mich. N.P. 240 (Circuit Court of the 2nd Circuit of Michigan, 1871)