Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913

Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch

Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 11, 1913 · Lehman
144 N.Y.S. 552 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Anna Moscowitz, of New York City, for appellant., Leo Lerner, of New York City, for respondent.

Prever Goldring Lumber Co. v. Ravitch

Opinion of the Court

LEHMAN, J.

The defendant in the case procured a commission to be taken. When the case was called on June 18th, the defendant requested an adjournment on the ground that the commission had not yet been returned. The trial justice stated that the commission had been returned two days before, and referred to an indorsement on the commission as showing that the commission had been returned on June 16th. As a matter of fact, the commission had been returned only that morning, and the indorsement so stated. This fact, in connection with the other circumstances in the case, justified the defendant’s attorney in expecting a reasonable postponement, and no default should have been taken.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion to open default granted. Appeal from judgment dismissed. All concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.