The Superior Court of New York City, 1886

Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay

Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay
The Superior Court of New York City · Decided April 15, 1886
1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 463

Counsel

John Lindley and Sutherland Tenney for appellant, W. Q-. Peckham and M W. Tyler for respondent.

Henry Prouse Cooper & Co. v. Findlay

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Tbe discretion of tbe judge was properly' used. It would not bave been proper to have opened tbe default. Tbe statements as to tbe reason for tbe defendant not appearing are vague and indefinite, and tbe affidavit of merits was more than counterbalanced by tbe plaintiff’s affidavits. Tbe affidavit of merits would be true if tbe plaintiff bad made an insignificant error in bis demand.

Order affirmedj with ten dollars costs.

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