Pattison v. Bacon
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant, a little more than two years ago, upon a promissory note, upon failure to answer. The defendant had recently moved to have the judgment opened, and to be allowed to come in and defend.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant, a little more than two years ago, upon a promissory note, upon failure to answer. The defendant had recently moved to have the judgment opened, and to be allowed to come in and defend. The ground alleged for that motion was that the note in suit was given by the defendant for the purchase-price of a note sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that the defendant was defeated in recovery on the note bought by him, by evidence that the note had been paid; hence that there was no consideration for the note in suit. The motion was…
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, J.
—I see no reason for a reargument of this motion. The additional matters which the defendant wishes to set up on the renewed motion were all known to him when that original motion was made. He should have stated all that was necessary at that time to secure his success. If he has neg-*143looted to do so, it is not consistent with the rules of practice in such case, to allow him the opportunity of making up the facts necessary to avoid the effect of the former decision. It is no more within.the rules of propriety to allow a renewal of a motion for such a purpose, than it would be to set aside a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Enderlin State Bank v. JenningsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Sheehan v. CarvalhoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Hall v. EmmonsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1870
- McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1886