Luft v. Graham
Opinion of the Court
It was the duty of the appellants to see that the cause was restored to the calendar of the general term, as part of the conditions upon which they were relieved from a former default. This they neglected to do, and respondent’s attorney, in accordance with that order, finding it omitted on the first day of the October general term, procured it to be so restored, and some days afterwards it was regularly called and a judgment of affirmance by default taken.,
I regard this action as regular ; and in consideration-of this being a second motion to be relieved, regard it but proper to look into the merits presented by the-justice’s return.
The note upon which a recovery was had was given-by the defendant McKenzie to plaintiff, for repairs-they had done to his wagon, and on their refusal to surrender their lien on it except upon the security of a good indorser.
Upon this consideration the note in suit was- given by McKenzie, with the indorsement of the appellants, a credit of two months being alloweed. Instead of the
Under such circumstances, their liability is well established by the court of appeals, in Moore v. Cross (19 N. Y., 227).
Their appeal is without merit, and this application to be again relieved from a default must be denied, with ten dollars costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.