Crandall & Godley Co. v. Eddy Confectionery Co.
New York Supreme Court
The defendant, a corporation located in Rensselaer county, obtained ex parte through its attorney, who also resided in the same county, an extension of time to answer for nineteen days from the Rensselaer County Judge. The defendant again obtained from the same County Judge a second extension of time to answer upon notice to the plaintiff’s attorney, and which motion was not opposed before the County Judge.
Read the full summary
The defendant, a corporation located in Rensselaer county, obtained ex parte through its attorney, who also resided in the same county, an extension of time to answer for nineteen days from the Rensselaer County Judge. The defendant again obtained from the same County Judge a second extension of time to answer upon notice to the plaintiff’s attorney, and which motion was not opposed before the County Judge. The plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why the second extension of time to answer should not be set aside and vacated, claiming that the County Judge had no power to grant an order…
1Opinion of the CourtSoott, J.
The County Judge of Rensselaer county had power to extend ex parte the defendant’s time to answer, the first extension having, been for less than twenty days (§ 772, Code Civ. Pro., Rule 24). The mere fact that the defendant’s attorney unnecessarily gave notice to plaintiff’s attorney that he proposed to apply for such an order at a particular time and before a particular County Judge did not limit the power of the judge. If the application had been one required to be made to the -court and! upon notice a different rule would prevail. Hun v. Salter, 92 N. Y. 651. Even if the order of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hun v. . SalterNew York Court of Appeals · 1883