Case Name: Campbell, Assignee, &c. against Grove
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1800-10
Citations: 2 Johns. Cas. 105
Docket Number: 
Parties: Campbell, Assignee, &c. against Grove.( )
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
Campbell, Assignee, &c. against Grove.( )
Where a party agreed to stay proceedings in a bail-bond suit, on payment of costs, the original suit having been settled, and the defendant neglecting to pay the costs, the plaintiff proceeded in the bail-bond suit, the court refused . to set aside the proceedings, as the plaintiff had no other way to obtain his costs.
Counter affidavits may be read to oppose a motion, though copies have not been served.
But supplementary affidavits, in support of a motion, cannot be read.
Ten Broece moved to set aside the proceedings on the bail-bond in. this cause, on the ground that the plaintiff had settled with the defendant in the original cause, before the commencement of this suit, and had directed the attorney to slay proceedings, but who had, notwithstanding, proceeded.
Emolt
produced counter affidavits, which were objected to, because the defendant had not been made acquainted with their contents, previous to their being read in court, but the objection was overruled. It appear that the original cause was commenced in July vacation, 1797 ; that in November, an accommodation was made between the parties, and the plaintiff then directed the proceedings to be stayed, on payment of costs. The costs remaining unpaid, a suit was instituted on the bail-bond, in April ’Vacation, 1799, and the defendant put in a plea of non est factum, in October vacation following.
Ten Broeck,
in reply, offered counter-supplementary affidavits, but the Court would not suffer them to be read; obsefving, that a party can never support his motion by any affidavits but those on which he originally grounds it.
(a)S. C., C. C.113.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant must take nothing by his motion. The attorney had no other way of compelling the payment of his costs, than by the suit on the bail-bond. Besides, the defendant has suffered such a length of time to elapse, that we would not now relieve, if there had been originally just grounds for such interference.
Rule refused.( )
(a) Grah.Prac. 2d ed. 678. Bergen et al. v. Boerum,2 Caines, 256. Clark v. Frost, 3 id. 125. Wilcox v. Howland, 6 Cowen. 576.