Ryghtmyre v. Durham
New York Supreme Court
In September, 1831, the plaintiff obtained a verdict in this cause for $169,73, the action being trespass. The defendants made a case, on which they moved for a new trial; which application was not disposed of until January, 1834, when the court refused to grant a new trial. In May last the plaintiff filed the circuit roll and pontea, and entered the usual rule for judgment.
Read the full summary
In September, 1831, the plaintiff obtained a verdict in this cause for $169,73, the action being trespass. The defendants made a case, on which they moved for a new trial; which application was not disposed of until January, 1834, when the court refused to grant a new trial. In May last the plaintiff filed the circuit roll and pontea, and entered the usual rule for judgment. The defendant Durham having died in 1833, the plaintiff, at a special term in September last, obtained a rule that the rule entered on the decision of the cause to be so amended as to authorize judgment to be entered for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The rule of September was according to the established practice of the court, which is correctly stated, and the reasons for'it, in 2 Dunlap’s Pr. 746, and 2 Tidd, 965: the party shall not be prejudiced by the delay of the court in giving judgment, if it can be avoided. The provisions of the statute, 2 R. S. 386, § 1, 2, 3, 4, do not affect this question. They refer to cases where the judgment has not been delayed by the court. In such cases, if one defendant dies, even; before verdict, the action shall not abates *246but shall proceed against the ■ survivor; but where…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Danforth v. DanforthIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Hilker v. KelleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Power v. LenoirMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- Collins v. PrenticeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1843
- Carrico v. CouchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.