Case ID: johns_3/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oakley against Steddiford and Marschalk.
    On a motion to set aside an inquest by default against two defend- • ants, one having previously been discharged as an insolvent, the court refused the rule upon the; plaintiff’s stipulating, to enter a verdict for the defendant who vyas discharged, Etc.
    THE defendants in this cause, pleaded separately, and an inquest was taken by default against both of them at the last sittings in Neio-York.
    
      Wells, in behalf of Marschalk, now moved to set aside the inquest. He read an affidavit that the defendants had pleaded separately, and that the defendant Marschalk had a good defence on the merits. It appeared that he had been regularly discharged under the insolvent act.
    
      R. Bogardus, contra,
    offered to stipulate not to proceed against Marschalk, and that a verdict might be entered for him on the postea.
    
   Per Curiam.

On the offer of the plaintiff, to have a verdict entered for the defendant Marschalk, we see no reason for setting aside the inquest, as he, by the offer, will have the full benefit of his discharge. On condition, therefore, that the plaintiff performs his stipulation in ten days, we refuse the rule.

Rule refused.