Case Name: Jane Rogers, Resp't, v. Henry Edmonds et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-12-09
Citations: 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jane Rogers, Resp’t, v. Henry Edmonds et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 28
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Jane Rogers, Resp’t, v. Henry Edmonds et al., App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 9, 1889.)
1, Justice oe the peace—Jurisdiction—Adjournments.
On the return day of a summons, the defendant, who had been personally served, not appearing, the justice adjourned the case for five days, and upon proof that the plaintiff was sick on the adjourned day, again adjourned for five days, when judgment was rendered. Held, that the adjournments were not irregular, and that the justice did not lose jurisdiction.
2. Same—Transcripts.
A mistake in the date of a transcript by which it appears that judgment was rendered on the return, and not on the adjourned day, is a clerical error and amendable.
Appeal from order denying motion to 'set aside a justice’s judgment, and all proceedings thereunder.
A summons was personally served on the defendant, Henry Edmonds, returnable March 11, 1889. On that day plaintiff appeared, by attorney, and filed a complaint, but defendant did not appear. The justice then adjourned the case to March 16. On the latter day the defendant did not appear, and upon proof that the plaintiff was sick and unable to attend, the case was again adjourned to March 21, at which time plaintiff took judgment. Transcript was filed, execution issued and returned unsatisfied, and supplementary proceedings commenced against Caroline E. Edmonds, under a third party order. This motion was thereupon made upon the ground that the justice had no jurisdiction to render the judgment, and the affidavit was insufficient to authorize supplementary proceedings. The transcript, as filed, stated that judgment was rendered on the return day, March 11.
George G. Andrews, for appl’ts; J. S. Millard, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
The defendant was personally served and failed to appear. The justice had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter of the action.
The defendant claims that because the justice made a mistake in a date in the transcript that all the proceedings are void. This contention cannot prevail. It was an error which was clearly amendable and was duly amended.
The adjournment was not irregular and judgment was properly rendered on the adjourned day. The mistake was a clerical error on the part of the justice and did not affect the judgment nor prejudice the defendant.
We think no right of the defendant has been prejudiced and that there is no merit in the appeal.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the county judge of Westchester county. The motion was made upon the theory that the justice of the peace in whose court the judgment was made had lost jurisdiction of the action by an irregular adjournment of the cause on the return, day of the summons. It was. abundantly proved by the answering affidavits to which the county judge gave credit, that the adjournments were regular, and that the justice of the peace did not lose jurisdiction.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.