Gallison & Hobron Co. v. Rawak
City of New York Municipal Court
Action by the Gallison & Hobron Company against Henry Rawak. After ■the action was commenced, the parties entered into the following stipulation: “The plaintiff and defendant, Rawak, hereby agree to the following state of facts: This action was commenced by the service of a summons and complaint on defendant, Rawak, on the 24th day of December, 1888, for the recovery of a claim of $75, which is conceded to-have been due.
Read the full summary
Action by the Gallison & Hobron Company against Henry Rawak. After ■the action was commenced, the parties entered into the following stipulation: “The plaintiff and defendant, Rawak, hereby agree to the following state of facts: This action was commenced by the service of a summons and complaint on defendant, Rawak, on the 24th day of December, 1888, for the recovery of a claim of $75, which is conceded to-have been due. Upon the 26th day of December, 1888, said Rawak paid $25 of the said claim, and on the 27th following $50 more; both payments being made to the plaintiff, and without the…
1Opinion of the Court
McAdam, C. J
The defendant being in default for want of an answer, the plaintiff’s attorneys have therightto enter judgment for $75, (the amount claimed,) with costs, and enforce it to the extent of the costs. Wood v. Trustees, 7 Abb. Pr. 210, note; Owen v. Mason, 18 How. Pr. 156. If the defendant had appeared, and pleaded the payment, and the plaintiff had proceeded to trial on the issue, the plea would have defeated the action. Rice v. Childs, 28 Hun, 303; Reimer v. Doerge, 61 How. Pr. 142. Upon receiving such a plea, the Plaintiff’s attorneys could have obviated its effect, and protected…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Haight v. HolcombNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Dietz v. McCallumThe Superior Court of New York City · 1873
- Reimer v. DoergeNew York Marine Court · 1881
- Owen v. MasonNew York Supreme Court · 1859