Goldfarb v. Keener
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the'United States for the Eastern District of New York. Action at law by Harry O. Keener, doing business as the Philadelphia Wrecking & Contracting Company, against Philip Goldfarb. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
HOUGH, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Doubtless “default” has come to be used by the bar of New York City to mean any act or omission (not amounting to consent) permitting or enabling an opponent to procure an unopposed advantage. But it recalls us to things fundamental to remember that in historic procedure it means the nonappearance of any party at court within the time prescribed by law to prosecute or defend. Bouv. Dic. (8th Ed.). In this proper sense Goldfarb suffered no default; he appeared and answered timely, and attended at trial in the only way he was required to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Goldsby v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- The Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Nalle v. OysterSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Shepard v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Buessel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rosen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
- Hall v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
- Rasmussen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- United States v. StephanidisDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1930
- In re Freed Bros. Style Coat House, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931