Drucker v. McCallum
New York Supreme Court
-Motion to vacate and set aside the judgment entered against the defendants and for leave to answer. This action, brought by Morris J. Drucker against Mary McCallum and Charles B. Richards, was commenced by the sei-vice of summons and complaint on the defendant, Mary McCallum, on February 14,1888. An answer was interposed on her behalf on February 20, 1888, which was the last day to answer, between the hours of five and six o’clock in the afternoon, as appears by the…
Read the full summary
-Motion to vacate and set aside the judgment entered against the defendants and for leave to answer. This action, brought by Morris J. Drucker against Mary McCallum and Charles B. Richards, was commenced by the sei-vice of summons and complaint on the defendant, Mary McCallum, on February 14,1888. An answer was interposed on her behalf on February 20, 1888, which was the last day to answer, between the hours of five and six o’clock in the afternoon, as appears by the affidavit of the defendant’s attorney, at which time, he further states, there was no one present in the office of the…
1Opinion of the CourtPitshke, J.
Even presuming the non-addition of the ¡address to the attorney’s own subscription on the pleading .or appearance (Code, § 421) is amendable (Wiggins v. Richmond, 58 How. Pr. 376; Evans v. Backer, 101 N. Y. 289; but see Osborn v. McClaskey, 55 How. Pr. 345; Kelly v. Sheehan, 76 N. Y. 325), still on morning of February 21, no valid answer existed in the cause, and nothing was then in the way of the plaintiff as regards entering judgment.*
*211Only by letting twenty-four hours pass without returning the paper served would this right to enter judgment be waived. Plaintiff committed no such waiver…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kelly v. . SheehanNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Evans v. . BackerNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Osborn v. McCloskeyNew York Supreme Court · 1878
- Wiggins v. RichmondNew York Supreme Court · 1879