Valkenburgh v. Dederick
New York Supreme Court
This cause was at issue in July vacation, 1798, and an inquest by default was regularly taken against the defendant early in July, 1799, on which a rule for judgment had been entered at this term. The defendant obtained a discharge under the act for giving relief in cases of insolvency, on the 9th February last, and being surrendered by his bail, moved to be discharged from custody, and that the proceedings against him subsequent to his discharge might be set aside.
1Per curiam
The defendant has shown no reason why he did not give his discharge in evidence, or plead it puis ■ dar. cont. and having neglected to make his proper defence, we will not interfere to help him.
In an ordinary case, and with a, more meritorious defence, the court would not relieve after so great a laches.(a)
Rule refused.
Cross v. Hobson, 2 Caines’ R. 102. Ackerman v. Van Houton, 5 Halstead, 332. Mechanics’ Bank v. Hazard, 9 Johns. R. 392. And see Cost v. Riley, 18 id. 54 ; and Desobry v. Morange, id. 336.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Monroe v. . UptonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Price v. PetersNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1862
- United States v. GarlinghouseDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1870