Arden v. Rice

1 Cai. Cas. 498 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1804

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

By the 8th rule of April, 1796, judgment, after a default entered, may be entered at any time after 4 days in term have intervened. The rule of July term, 1796, ordering all rules for judgment to be entered in term, and not in vacation, was abolished in April term, 1799, and restored the first rule. There is no good reason why four days in term should be given in this case to the defendants, any more than on a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. The defendants take nothing by their motion.






Dissenting Opinion

Spencer, J.

dissented, on the ground that the practice had been different.(a)

Motion denied.

Judgment may be entered in vacation as of the preceding term on a warrant of attorney given in that vacation to enter up judgment on a bond payable immediately. King v. Shaw, 3 Johns. Rep. 142. A warrant of attorney should also authorize the entry as of the preceding term, when given in vacation. But except in the above cases, neither interlocutory nor final judgment can be entered in vacation. Hogeboom v. Genet, 6 Johns. Rep. 325. To enter a rule nisi for judgment on the 4th day of term after a verdict, is no violation of an order to stay proceedings. Hackley v. Hastie & Patrick, 3 Johns. Rep. 253. It may be entered on any day in term. Rose v. Rock, 6 Johns. Rep. 330.

midpage