Philips v. Hawley
New York Supreme Court
THE first suit was an action of debt, on a bond given » ,1 . , , 5>y the intestate» By the affidavit of the defendant’s attorney, it appearsd, that on the 21st March, 1809, the declaration and notice of rule to plead, in the first cause, were served A judgment was obtained against the defendant in the Srst cause, in May term, 1809, for the amount of the bond of the testator, on which the suit was brought, and an execution was issued, the 13th November last, returnable in the…
Read the full summary
THE first suit was an action of debt, on a bond given » ,1 . , , 5>y the intestate» By the affidavit of the defendant’s attorney, it appearsd, that on the 21st March, 1809, the declaration and notice of rule to plead, in the first cause, were served A judgment was obtained against the defendant in the Srst cause, in May term, 1809, for the amount of the bond of the testator, on which the suit was brought, and an execution was issued, the 13th November last, returnable in the November term, against the goods and chattels of the intestate, which was the first notice the defendant had of the…
1Per curiam
There is no doubt that the plaintiff^ proceedings were regular, and that there has been alaches on the part of the defendant, or his attorney, in not applying at the term next after he was acquainted with the fact of a default having been entered. In any other case,- such a neglect would be fatal, and we would not afford relief; but in- the case of executors and administrators we will relieve, especially when the defendant knew nothing of the default, until it was too late to apply at the last term, and his attorney, though his ignorance was gross, seems not to- have been aware of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Martin v. SarlesNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Reynolds v. StansburyOhio Supreme Court · 1851
- M'Kinstry v. EdwardsNew York Supreme Court · 1800