Richardson v. McDougall
New York Supreme Court
A scire facias quare executionem non having been issued in this cause and duly returned, the plaintiff entered a rule to plead and posted notice of the same in the clerk’s office. After the entry of the rule, but on the same day, the plaintiffss attorney was served with notice from an attorney that he was retained to defend the suit on* the scire facias.
Read the full summary
A scire facias quare executionem non having been issued in this cause and duly returned, the plaintiff entered a rule to plead and posted notice of the same in the clerk’s office. After the entry of the rule, but on the same day, the plaintiffss attorney was served with notice from an attorney that he was retained to defend the suit on* the scire facias. The plaintiff’s attorney, disregarding the notice of retainer, entered the defendant’s default for not pleading, and then, without entering any rule for judgment or filing a judgment roll, issued an execution on the original judgment. On…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
The proceedings of the plaintiff after the rule to plead on the sci. fa. as far as he went, were not regular. No declaration was necessary ; the sci. fa. was itself a declaration, 2 R. S. 480, § 22, 2d ed.; but notice should have been served on the defendant's attorney of the rule to plead, he having given notice of retainer before the default for not pleading was entered. Id. 480, § 18. Rule 19. No rule for judgment was taken, nor any judgment roll made out. The plaintiff does not pretend that the proceedings on the sci. fa. can help him, but he claims the right to take…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of Utica v. MersereauNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
- Maxwell v. LeesonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
- Hutchins v. County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870