History
  • No items yet
midpage
Valkenburgh v. Dederick
1 Johns. Cas. 133
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1799
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The defendant has shown no reason why he did not give his discharge in evidence, or plead it puis ■ dar. cont. and having neglected to make his proper defence, we will not interfere to help him.

In an ordinary case, and with a, more meritorious defence, the court would not relieve after so great a laches.(a)

Rule refused.

Cross v. Hobson, 2 Caines’ R. 102. Ackerman v. Van Houton, 5 Halstead, 332. Mechanics’ Bank v. Hazard, 9 Johns. R. 392. And see Cost v. Riley, 18 id. 54 ; and Desobry v. Morange, id. 336.

Case Details

Case Name: Valkenburgh v. Dederick
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 15, 1799
Citation: 1 Johns. Cas. 133
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.