Blodget v. Conklin & Arnold
New York Supreme Court
Motion to set aside judgment, &c. The action was commenced by summons, which was personally served on both defendants. The service was made upon the defendant Conklin on the 25th of January, 1854. On the next day after the service of the summons on Conklin, he employed H. 0. Chesebro, Esq., an attorney of this court, to defend the action.
Read the full summary
Motion to set aside judgment, &c. The action was commenced by summons, which was personally served on both defendants. The service was made upon the defendant Conklin on the 25th of January, 1854. On the next day after the service of the summons on Conklin, he employed H. 0. Chesebro, Esq., an attorney of this court, to defend the action. On .the first day of February following, Mr. Chesebro caused a notice of appearance for the defendant Conklin, with a demand of a copy of the complaint to be served upon the plaintiff’s attorney, who, on the same day, returned the notice and demand to Mr.…
1Opinion of the Court
Welles, Justice.
The plaintiff appears to have been perfectly regular in obtaining the judgment. No collusion is shown between the attorney first employed, Mr. Robinson, upon whose offer the judgment was entered, and the plaintiff*. Conklin and Robinson both show, in their affidavits, that the latter supposed Arnold was authorized to employ him for both defendants. Nor is there anything to show collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant Arnold. Enough appears to show hostility between the two defendants, and that Arnold desired, and that his measures were taken with a view to give the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ellsworth v. CampbellNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Porter v. BronsonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1865
- Bean v. MatherNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1865
- Mayor v. SmithThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1892
- Negley v. Counting-Room Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.