Woodward v. Quackenbos

1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 121, 1 Cole. Cas. 120, 2 Johns. Cas. 110
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1800
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 121 (Woodward v. Quackenbos) 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
Woodward v. Quackenbos, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 121, 1 Cole. Cas. 120, 2 Johns. Cas. 110 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The entry of the default in this manner was certainly irregular. No rule could be; entered against the casual ejector in a cause entitled against the tenant. The signing the consent rule, delivering a new declaration, putting in common bail, and filing a plea, are all simultaneous acts ; should the tenant, therefore, neglect to file his plea instanter, he is to be considered as not appearing in the suit, and then default is to be entered against the casual ejector. But the default against the casual ejector is taken under the first rule at the return of the writ, and not in consequence of any new rule.

Default set aside.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 121, 1 Cole. Cas. 120, 2 Johns. Cas. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-v-quackenbos-nysupct-1800.