Case Name: EDWIN HADLEY, Appellant, v. SAMUEL C. BOEHM, Impleaded, etc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 304
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWIN HADLEY, Appellant, v. SAMUEL C. BOEHM, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 8
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
EDWIN HADLEY, Appellant, v. SAMUEL C. BOEHM, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
Discharge in bankrrwptcy — swpplemental answer — order aMomng — not
This action was commenced in September, 1871, issue was joined in November, 1871, and an affidavit of merits served December 30,1871. The cause was on the calendar until January Term, 1874, when an inquest was taken, and judgment entered on January sixteenth. In November, 1872, defendant instituted proceedings in bankruptcy, and, on April, 18,1873, received a discharge from all his debts including the one for which this suit was brought. Defendant’s attorneys, when advised by him of his proceedings to be discharged, understood him to instruct them that they should give the case no farther attention, and they, acting upon this, allowed the inquest to be taken.
The plaintiff had notice of such proceedings. The defendant having received his discharge, and fully relying on the same as ending the suit, paid no attention to it until he learned that judgment had been entered against him, when he applied to have the judgment set aside, and for leave to file a supplemental answer, setting up his discharge. Held, that upon these facts, the order granting the application was proper; and held, further, that the order being discretionary, was not appeal-able.
Appeal from an order made at Special Term, setting aside a default taken at circuit, and allowing the defendant, S. 0. Boehm, to file a supplemental answer, setting up his discharge in bankruptcy, which was obtained since serving his original answer.
B. F. Watson, for the appellant.
Salter <& Cowing, for the respondent.
Medbury v. Swan, 46 N. Y., 200; Millard v. Van Brunt, 17 Abb., 319; Wait’s Ann. Code, 331.

Opinion:
Opinion by Brady, J.
Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.
Order affirmed, with costs.