Case Name: HALSEY ads. VAN WAGENEN AND OTHERS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1838-02
Citations: 16 N.J.L. 350
Docket Number: 
Parties: HALSEY ads. VAN WAGENEN AND OTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
HALSEY ads. VAN WAGENEN AND OTHERS.
Matter of Practice.
0. 8. Hoisted,,
moved for leave to open the judgment in this case, upon reading the defendant’s affidavit.
H. W. Orem,
for the plaintiffs, objected that the affidavit was taken without notice to them, and no copy of it served.
Mr. Hoisted,
referred to the case of Condit and Crane decided at this term.
Horn blower, C. J.
I always supposed that no notice of taking the affidavit of a party, is necessary.
The objection to the affidavit, being waived,, it was read, stating that the judgment was entered by surprise, the joinder of issue on the demurrer, not being filed in time.
Mr. Green.
The affidavit of a party, should not be heard on motion for rule absolute, to open a judgment; but only for a rule to shew a cause. Rules of Supreme Court, 20, affidavit, 1; 3 Halst. 160; 2 Archb. Pr. 11; Coxe R. 400; Allen ads. Den, Hendrickson, 3 Green, 102.
Hórnblower, C. J.
I never understood the practice in this Court or at Westminster Hall, to be, that where a party’s affidavit may be taken for a preliminary motion, that it must be on notice. If such be the rule, it ought to be altered. Every day’s practice is otherwise. I cannot distinguish this case from that of Gondii and Grane, (ante 349.) There was laches in that case, there is laches here. The defendant is an attorney of this Court, and should have attended to the case. The joinder in demurrer is a merely formal matter and much like a similiter on pleas of general issues. In the case of Livingston and Smith in the Circuit Court of United States, Judge Washington would not permit advantage to be taken on demurring to omissions or misplacing of names, but ordered the plea to be amended.
Ford, J.
Laying aside any conversation out of doors between the parties, I see no necessity or utility of notice of taking an affidavit in such a case as this. The affidavit is good on a rule' to shew cause. The plaintiff being in possession of a judgment and execution, can lose nothing by the rule applied for. The affidavit shews that the defendant has merits. Let the judgment be opened to let in a defence; the judgment and execution remaining as surety.
Ryersoít, J.
I entertain still my opinion expressed in the case of Condit and Crane. I think the old rule was either to give notice of taking affidavit, or serving a copy of it. The English practice, I believe, requires notice.
The Chief Justice observed, that there is no settled rule of practice in such cases.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Let the plea be amended during the term, as to the matter demurred to; and the judgment be opened, but standing together with the execution, as security for the plaintiff's claim.
Rule granted.