Gould v. Spencer
New York Supreme Court
In these actions, which were for libellous publications on the plaintiffs, in a paper entitled “ The Corrector,” judgments had been entered on default, and writs of inquiry executed. and inquisition of damages on an affidavit made by himself, stating, that by the writs sued out in these causes, Woodworth and Osborn appear to have been the attorneys on record for the plaintiffs,(a) but that the declarations were endorsed with the name of Osborn only.
Read the full summary
In these actions, which were for libellous publications on the plaintiffs, in a paper entitled “ The Corrector,” judgments had been entered on default, and writs of inquiry executed. and inquisition of damages on an affidavit made by himself, stating, that by the writs sued out in these causes, Woodworth and Osborn appear to have been the attorneys on record for the plaintiffs,(a) but that the declarations were endorsed with the name of Osborn only. That the rules also, which had been entered in these causes, were signed by the name of Osborn only, and this, without any order of court…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Guriam.
If the proceedings were not correct by being in the name of one attorney only, yet the defendants show no excuse for not applying at an earlier day of this term. This is fatal to their motion. Besides, it is sufficient if one of the attorneys appearing on the writ, continue to endorse and sign the proceedings. It must be presumed the defendants *were not misled, but knew they were the parties meant by the- original suit. As to the second objection, there is no force in it. The settled practice is to allow of notice of inquiry being given at any time after default, and it is enough…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People ex rel. Morris v. EdmondsNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Bank of Rochester v. BoultonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Boyd & Phelps v. SeelyNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- McCotter v. LawrenceNew York Supreme Court · 1875