City of New York Municipal Court, 1898

Thum v. Iserman

Thum v. Iserman
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided November 18, 1898 · Dwyer, Fitzsimons
54 N.Y.S. 559; 25 Misc. 327 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

E. Ashley, for appellant., Zeller & Miehling, for respondent.

Thum v. Iserman

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The amended complaint, which was accepted by the defendant and was verified, required from the defendant an amended answer, winch should have been verified. The answer served was not verified. Therefore the judgment as entered was correct practice.

The defendant’s default, however, will be vacated, providing he will within six days comply with the terms imposed by the order appealed from; and if he refuses to do so, then the motion to vacate judgment is hereby denied, and the order appealed from affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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