Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Sutherland and others, against Stiles, Arthur, tenant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1826-05
Citations: 5 Cow. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Sutherland and others, against Stiles, Arthur, tenant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 418–419

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Sutherland and others, against Stiles, Arthur, tenant.
^ejectment rights of the nof affected by tire proceedsents™hS °the sOT^rn^a l6b" stricke?7 out ids teha™ at any stage of togs, Pthomdi he originally its insertion; shareayofS the costs to the toraeyffS at"
Inserting the word jiiag» ment in the tenant’s°f default for not appearing, &c. éjecüneCnt°w-aí not alter the legal effect of the entry; notwithstand1’ ing, be good; and the word judgment may be rejected as surplusage. .
this bya°l!d! for judgment without7’ saying against whom; held, a good rule for judgment against the casual ejector.
Where the plaintiff on judgment by default, against the casual ejector, on a writ of possession, took possession of the whole premises, it appearing that he had no title to three sixths, he was ordered to restore so much to the defendant.
Ejectment. On the 16th of December, 1825, the tenant having neglected to appear and enter into the consent rule, t^ie pla-iJitifF’s attorney, on the usual affidavit of service, entered a rule in the common rule book, that the tenant apPear an5 enter into the consent rule in twenty days, or jU(^oment against the casual ejector by default. This rule not being complied with, on the 24th of January, 1826, he enfore<^ a rule for judgment against the casual ejector by default; and on the 27th day of February thereafter, a rule f°r judgment generally, without stating against whom. Previous to the judgment, the defendant had extinguished all the rights of the various lessors except to f of the prem^ses ™ question; notwithstanding which, the plaintiff had perfected judgment for the whole ; and taken possessi°n generally, by writ of possession. Sutherland now made an affidavit that he never had retained the attorney J for the plaintiff to bring the action; but he was fully contradicted by affidavits on the part of the plaintiff.
On papers disclosing the above facts,
St°ry, in behalf of the tenant and Sutherland,
now moved that the default, and all subsequent proceedings, be ., „ , . , , u r ° ’ set aside tor irregularity; and that, at any rate, Suther^an^’s name should be stricken from the proceedings.
M’Kissock and T. J. Oakley, contra,

Opinion:
Curia.
Sutherland has a right to have his name stricken ^Iom the proceedings, on paying his proportion of the costs to the attorney for the plaintiff. A lessor in ejectment may discontinue in this at of the where the rights of the defendant to costs are not affected; or he consents, as here, that it may be done ; although such lessor may have originally retained the attorney who brings the suit. It does not, in general, lie with his co-lessors to object.
There is no ground for setting aside the default and subsequent proceedings. Though the rales may not have been aptly or fully drawn; yet, looking to the nature and purpose of the action, and the times at which they were entered, their meaning cannotbe mistaken. Inserting the Avord judgment in the rule for the default, will not vitiate it, or alter the legal effect. The Avord may be rejected as surplusage.
Upon the same principle the Avords, " against the casual ejector" may be supplied in the final rule, Avhich order's judgment generally Avithout saying against xvhom.
But the plaintiff has taken possession beyond Iris right.
The execution of the xvrit of possession was imqualiiied; though, as appears fully from the papers, the right to three-sixths of the premises in question was extinguished. Let the defendant be restored to so much. No costs are allowed on either side.
Rule accordingly.