Legal Opinion

Randell v. Abrisqueta

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided October 15, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Motion for judgznent for want of an answer.

1Opinion of the Court

McAdam, Ch. J.

The defendant served his answer in time, but it was returned by the plaintiff, on the ground that because the defendant owed $10 motion costs, his proceedings were stayed, and that he could not make his defense until the costs were first paid (Code Civ. Pro. § 779; 3 Abb. N. C. 50; 4 Id. 13; 54 How. 23).

’ This is a mistaken notion of the rule. The provision of the Code (§ 779) “ was intended to prevent an onward movement in an action by a party who owed costs of a motion” (Bigler v. Nat. Bk. of Newburgh, 26 Hun, at p. 520), but was not intended to prevent a party moved against…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hazard v. WilsonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
  2. Lyons v. MuratNew York Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Lyons v. MuratNew York Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Farber v. FlaumanAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1900
  2. Mattice v. ShellandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
  3. Blair v. BlairNew York Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Goldberg v. WoodAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
  5. Mattice v. ShellandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API