Bank of Kinderhook v. Gifford
New York Supreme Court
THIS was a motion to set aside a default for want of an answer, and to be allowed to answer the complaint. The answer sought to be interposed, as appeared by the plaintiff’s affidavit, alleged that the note sued on was given for money won at play.
1Opinion of the CourtPeckham, J.
The objection that it does not appear by the moving papers what defense the defendants wish to interpose, is answered, if any answer be required, by the fact that the papers on the other side show that the answer was read by the plaintiff’s attorney before notice of the motion, and the intended defense is therefore known to him. The main question, however, is, should the court permit such a defense to be interposed after a default has been suffered. The default is fully excused. Why then should not this defense be permitted ? Because, it is said, that such a defense, against a bona fide…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hallagan v. GoldenNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Gourlay v. HuttonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Sturgis v. CloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bradley v. Phœnix InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Gilchrist v. Gilchrist's ExecutorsNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Carey v. BrowneNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Barnett v. MeyerNew York Supreme Court · 1877
- Union National Bank of Troy v. BassettNew York Supreme Court · 1867