Hotaling v. Schermerhorn
New York Supreme Court
This action was commenced in the Supreme Court • on the 3 cl day of April, 1899, and the place of trial designated in the complaint was the county of Schoharie.
Read the full summary
This action was commenced in the Supreme Court • on the 3 cl day of April, 1899, and the place of trial designated in the complaint was the county of Schoharie. Before the defendant had appeared in the action, and on the 21st day of April, 1899, the plaintiff presented to the clerk of the county of Schoharie a stipulation of discontinuance signed by the plaintiff’s attorneys, together with an affidavit by one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, stating, among other things, that the defendant had not appeared in the action. The clerk of Schoharie county signed an order of discontinuance, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
It is conceded that the old chancery practice authorized the entry of a rule or order by a clerk of that court discontinuing an action on the application of the plaintiff’s attorneys and proof that there had been no appearance in the action by the defendant. That practice has undoubtedly been continued in the Supreme Court, at least in some parts of the State, since the adoption of the Code of Procedure and the present Code of Civil Procedure, by entering such orders -with the clerks of the several counties acting as clerks of the court. The attorneys for the defendant insist that a county…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Averill v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Fisher v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Cockle v. UnderwoodThe Superior Court of New York City · 1854
- Bedell v. PowellNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- McBratney v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.