Rice v. Ehele
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, affirming an order denying a motion on the part of defendants * et aside an ex parte order of Special Term, striking cheir answer and precluding them from a defence herem: (Reported below, 65 Barb., 185.) On the 5th March, 1872, a Special Term order was granted herein, on notice, requiring defendants to produce certain books and deposit them with the county clerk of Herkimer, within…
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, affirming an order denying a motion on the part of defendants * et aside an ex parte order of Special Term, striking cheir answer and precluding them from a defence herem: (Reported below, 65 Barb., 185.) On the 5th March, 1872, a Special Term order was granted herein, on notice, requiring defendants to produce certain books and deposit them with the county clerk of Herkimer, within thirty days, and declaring that “ for a failure thereof the defendants shall be precluded from making any defence…
1Opinion of the CourtFolger, J.
The order of which the defendants complained, is not that made by Justice Jambs on the 5th March, 1872, nor that made by Justice Doolittle on the 18th May, 1872. The defendants had notice and were heard upon the granting of each of those. The complaint is of the order made by Justice Doolittle on the 20th May, 1872, by which the defendants’ answer was stricken out absolutely, and they absolutely precluded from making any defence in the action. The ground of complaint is, that the order was made without the defendants having been heard on the application therefor, and without notice to them.
It…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brinkley v. . BrinkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Gould v. . McCartyNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. TimNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1884