New York Supreme Court, 1878

Jurgenson v. Hamilton

Jurgenson v. Hamilton
New York Supreme Court · Decided April 15, 1878 · Barrett
5 Abb. N. Cas. 149

Counsel

George H. Kracht, for the motion., Henry H. Morange, opposed.

Jurgenson v. Hamilton

Opinion of the Court

Barrett, J.

The defendant should not be harassed by successive examinations upon the same judgment. It is evident that he was fully examined, and if the proceedings were abandoned it was probably because the plaintiff has exhausted all remedies and reasonable efforts in that direction. It is only when proceedings have inadvertently fallen through, that a second order without freshly-acquired property, is allowed. A party cannot, after examining the matter for eight hours, drop the matter and commence de novo, when*151ever it suits Ms conveMence. The order must be dismissed with $10.00 costs .to be deducted from the judgment.

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