New York Supreme Court, 1889

Rogers v. Edmonds

Rogers v. Edmonds
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 10, 1889 · Dykman, Pratt
7 N.Y.S. 881; 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 749; 55 Hun 604; 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1360 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

George Q. Andrews, for appellants. J. S. Millard, for respondent.

Rogers v. Edmonds

Opinion of the Court

Pratt, J.

The defendant was personally served, and failed to appear. The justice had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter of the action. The defendant claims that because the justice made a mistake in a date in the transcript that all the proceedings are void. This contention cannot prevail. It was an error which was clearly amendable, and was duly amended. The adjournment was not irregular, and judgment was properly rendered on the adjourned day. The mistake was a clerical error on the part of the j ustiee, and did not affect the judgment nor prejudice the defendant. We think no right of the defendant has been prejudiced, and that there is no merit in the appeal. Order affirmed, with costs.

Concurring Opinion

Dykman, J.,

(concurring.) This is an appeal from an order of the county judge of Westchester county. The motion was made upon the theory that the justice of the peace in whose court the judgment was made had lost jurisdiction of the action by an irregular adjournment of the cause on the return-day of the summons. It was abundantly proved, by the answering affidavits to which the county judge gave credit, that the adjournments were regular, and that the justice of the peace did not lose jurisdiction. The order should be affirmed, with costs.

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