Stewart v. Atkins
New York Supreme Court
The capias ad respondendum, on which the defendant endorsed his appearance, was signed by O. M. Willey, atlorney ; and the notice of the rule (o plead, endorsed upon the declaration, was signed by the same attorney, and served personally on the defendant, who retained an attorney, who wrote and inquired of his agent whether any rule to plead had been actually entered, and received for answer that there had not.
Read the full summary
The capias ad respondendum, on which the defendant endorsed his appearance, was signed by O. M. Willey, atlorney ; and the notice of the rule (o plead, endorsed upon the declaration, was signed by the same attorney, and served personally on the defendant, who retained an attorney, who wrote and inquired of his agent whether any rule to plead had been actually entered, and received for answer that there had not. He, therefore, omitted to plead, and the plaintiff took judgment by default. On further search, it turned out that the rule to plead was entered in the name c tt ■ c ir,-,i i ' , , , .…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
For the reason, alone, that the defendant has been misled by this proceeding, we set aside the default, without Costs.
Rule accordingly.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cabanne v. MacadarasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Browning v. RoaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1849