Clement v. Crossman
New York Supreme Court
IN error, from the court of common pleas of Genessee 7 - , county» A judgment was obtained by Cross?nany thedefendant in error, against Clement, in the court below, in June, 1808, on which a writ of error was brought, and a judgment of reversal by default, for not joining in error, was obtained in this court, in August term, 1810. A motion was now made, in behalf of the defendant in ..... r , , . , error, to set aside the judgment ext reversal, which was submitted to the…
Read the full summary
IN error, from the court of common pleas of Genessee 7 - , county» A judgment was obtained by Cross?nany thedefendant in error, against Clement, in the court below, in June, 1808, on which a writ of error was brought, and a judgment of reversal by default, for not joining in error, was obtained in this court, in August term, 1810. A motion was now made, in behalf of the defendant in ..... r , , . , error, to set aside the judgment ext reversal, which was submitted to the court, on affidavits. The attorney of the defendant in error swore, that he was attorney for the plaintiff in the court…
1Per curiam
As no attorney was employed on the' part of the defendant, the rule to join in error ought to have been personally served on the defendant, either by delivery to him, or by leaving it at his dwelling-house, or by some other mode of service which the court might specially direct, under the circumstances of the case. This was the practice adopted in Hardenbergh v. Thompson, (1 Johns. Rep. 61.) which was on a certiorari, and the reason of it applies equally to this case, as the party ought not to lose a right acquired by his judgment below, until he has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wilkinson v. TildenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- Bailey v. City of CincinnatiOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1855
- Jackson v. WakemanNew York Supreme Court · 1823