Plumb v. Whipples & Gates
New York Supreme Court
Motion by the defendant Gates, to set aside the judgment in this action against him, for irregularity. The action is upon a promissory note made by the defendants Whipple, and endorsed by the defendant Gates. The summons and complaint were served on Gates, on the 8th of March last. On the 27th of March, Gates served his answer by mail.
Read the full summary
Motion by the defendant Gates, to set aside the judgment in this action against him, for irregularity. The action is upon a promissory note made by the defendants Whipple, and endorsed by the defendant Gates. The summons and complaint were served on Gates, on the 8th of March last. On the 27th of March, Gates served his answer by mail. On the first day of April, the plaintiffs’ attorney served by mail a notice of trial for the Rensselaer circuit, to be held on the 21st of the same month. The answer not having been verified, and no affidavit of merits having been filed, the plaintiffs’…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
By the defendants’ answer, controverting the material allegations in the complaint, an issue of fact was made, which might be noticed for trial (Code of 1849, § 250, 256). The plaintiff’s attorney was therefore regular, in serving notice of trial on the first of April. The defendant insists that, by the 172d section of the Code, he was entitled to amend his answer; and that having served his original answer by mail, the time to amend was extended to forty days. But I think he is mistaken in his main position. The section referred to, provides that a pleading may be amended “…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Huebshman v. KugelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Townsend v. HillmannCity of New York Municipal Court · 1890
- Grindal v. De LanoCity of New York Municipal Court · 1891