Case Name: Kitson, Respondent, v. Blake, Appellant; Same v. Blake et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-07-02
Citations: 15 N.Y.S. 968
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kitson, Respondent, v. Blake, Appellant. Same v. Blake et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 15
Pages: 968–968

Head Matter:
Kitson, Respondent, v. Blake, Appellant. Same v. Blake et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 2, 1891.)
Action by Thomas Kitson against Sarah F.JBIake, and action by Thomas Kitson against Frederick D. Blake and others.
Argued before Barnard, F. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
C. Bainbridge Smith, for appellants. F. D. Blake and Norwood & Coggeshall, (Carlisle Norwood, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
These are appeals from orders denying a motion in each of the cases to open a default taken at the circuit. The actions are brought upon promissory notes, and there have been several other actions of the same kind in which defaults have been taken under similar circumstances, and appeals have been taken from orders denying motions to open such defaults. One of those appeals was decided at the last general term, (14 N. Y. Supp. 446,) and our examination satisfied us that the defendants were destitute of defense to the actions, and that no sufficient reason was presented to the trial court for a postponement of the trial. These appeals present substantially similar questions, and we find no reason for any different conclusion. The orders should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.