Martine v. Lowenstein
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Special Term denying defendants’ motion for leave to be heard upon exceptions to the report of a referee. Notice of appearance after judgment does not entitle the party serving such appearance to notice of any proceedings upon such judgment. {Abbott v. Smith, 8 How. Pr., 463; lynds v. West, 12 Wend., 235; White v. Featherstonhaugh, 7 How. Pr., 357.)
1Opinion of the Court
Davis, P. J.:
This was an action to foreclose a mortgage. The appellants were made parties defendant, as owners of the equity of redemption. They did not appear and defend the action, and judgment was entered against them by default, for want of an answer, on the 14th *226May, 1872. On the 31st May, 1872, the defendants served affidavits and notice of motion that the judgment be opened, and that the defendants be let in to defend, which motion papers were indorsed, F. W. Townsend, attorney for defendants Lowenstein. No other notice of appearance was served. The motion was heard and denied on the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- M'Kenster v. Van ZandtNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Baxter & Fuller v. Arnold, Conklin & BaileyNew York Supreme Court · 1854