Martin v. Sarles
New York Supreme Court
The defendant having filed an inventory, as administrator, was sued upon a bond of his intestate; and being advised by the family of the intestate, that the bond was paid, retained an attorney, pleaded payment, and defended on this gromid at the circuit, in April, 1824, by his counsel, when a verdict passed against him.
Read the full summary
The defendant having filed an inventory, as administrator, was sued upon a bond of his intestate; and being advised by the family of the intestate, that the bond was paid, retained an attorney, pleaded payment, and defended on this gromid at the circuit, in April, 1824, by his counsel, when a verdict passed against him. S. A. Foot, on an affidavit of Sarles, that he did not understand the legal effect of this plea of payment, as subjecting him to a personal liability for the debt, on its being found against him; that it was pleaded in good faith ; and that he had fully administered when the…
1Opinion of the Court
[Woodworth, J.
Can it be proper, after a party has thus had the chance of a trial, to allow him to come in at any distance of time for relief ?]
Foot. Laches are out of the question; for the consequences were not known to the defendant.
[Woodworth, J. He had counsel.]
Foot. He could derive no benefit from his counsel ; .foi he did not dream of this consequence. He was misled by the family into a belief that he could make out payment, and accordingly instructed his counsel to rely upon this. The Court frequently relieve against mistakes of practice, and it appears to me their interference here…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hunt v. Rousmanier's AdministratorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Philips v. HawleyNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by2 opinions
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward Trucking Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Little Caesar National Advertising Program, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Oppco, LLC ,Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000