Case Name: Oothout against Rooth
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1815-01
Citations: 12 Johns. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: Oothout against Rooth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 151–151

Head Matter:
Oothout against Rooth.
a notice oí ex ecuting a writ of inquiry at a certain day, “ provided an jüdgSshaii have then been obtained in the good6’” Th@ prov<¡!o°fmay be «sleeted as surplusage, If no interlocutory judgment should, in fact, and° tiúTn’o. roantermand-* l^such no-¡he’cos™1 pa7
Parker moved to set aside the writ of inquiry, and all subse- ... quent proceedings, in' this cause.
I. Hamilton, contra.
It appeared that the notice of executing the writ of inquiry, was for a certain day, &c. “provided an interlocutory judgment shall then have been obtained in this cause.” '

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
, Lhe proviso is unusual m notices, but is implied in every notice of this kind. If it should happen that no interlocutory judgment should be obtained, and no notice of the fact should be given, the party who gave such notice, would be liable to costs. The words in the notice might be rejected as surplusage. We do not think it a sufficient ground for setting aside the proceedings.
Motion denied.