Jackson ex dem. Sutherland v. Stiles
New York Supreme Court
Ejectment. On the 16th of December, 1825, the tenant having neglected to appear and enter into the consent rule, t^ie pla-iJitifF’s attorney, on the usual affidavit of service, entered a rule in the common rule book, that the tenant apPear an5 enter into the consent rule in twenty days, or jU(^oment against the casual ejector by default.
Read the full summary
Ejectment. On the 16th of December, 1825, the tenant having neglected to appear and enter into the consent rule, t^ie pla-iJitifF’s attorney, on the usual affidavit of service, entered a rule in the common rule book, that the tenant apPear an5 enter into the consent rule in twenty days, or jU(^oment against the casual ejector by default. This rule not being complied with, on the 24th of January, 1826, he enfore<^ a rule for judgment against the casual ejector by default; and on the 27th day of February thereafter, a rule f°r judgment generally, without stating against whom. Previous to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
Sutherland has a right to have his name stricken ^Iom the proceedings, on paying his proportion of the costs to the attorney for the plaintiff. A lessor in ejectment may discontinue in this at of the *419where the rights of the defendant to costs are not affected; or he consents, as here, that it may be done ; although such lessor may have originally retained the attorney who brings the suit. It does not, in general, lie with his co-lessors to object.
There is no ground for setting aside the default and subsequent proceedings. Though the rales may not have been aptly or fully drawn; yet,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Howard v. Kennedy's Exr'sSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Board of Education v. CrawFordWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Lytle v. FennU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1844
- Skinner v. OdenbachNew York Supreme Court · 1894