Vischer v. Van Alen

New York Supreme Court

Vischer v. Van Alen

1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 116, 1 Cole. Cas. 115

DecidedOctober 15, 1800

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 116 (Vischer v. Van Alen) 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.

Bluebook

Vischer v. Van Alen, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 116, 1 Cole. Cas. 115 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case, it appears, that the consent rules were entered into, a new declaration [117]*117delivered, but no plea filed, and thereupon judgment entered, by default, against the tenant.

Although at the time of signing the rule, the plea ought to have been put in, yet the entering the default in this manner was improper. It should have been against the casual ejector, according to the terms of the consent rule. There can be no judgment by default against the tenant.

Let the defendant take the effect of his motion.

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

Per Curiam.

In this case, it appears, that the consent rules were entered into, a new declaration [117]*117delivered, but no plea filed, and thereupon judgment entered, by default, against the tenant.

Although at the time of signing the rule, the plea ought to have been put in, yet the entering the default in this manner was improper. It should have been against the casual ejector, according to the terms of the consent rule. There can be no judgment by default against the tenant.

Let the defendant take the effect of his motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 116, 1 Cole. Cas. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vischer-v-van-alen-nysupct-1800.