Case Name: BISHOP v. FULLER
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-02-28
Citations: 68 N.Y.S. 1131
Docket Number: 
Parties: BISHOP v. FULLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 68
Pages: 1131–1131

Head Matter:
BISHOP v. FULLER.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
February 28, 1901.)
Action—Stale Claim—Default.
Where default was noted and inquest taken in an action 15 years ago, but no judgment was entered thereon, and no reason is assigned for the long delay, plaintiff’s motion for an order that the action and all further proceedings therein be carried on in her present married name should be denied, though the notice of the motion and of appeal appear to have been served on defendant’s attorney of record at the time the action was commenced, and defendant did not appear on the motion or appeal, since the claim is stale.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Eleanor F. Bishop against Leone Fuller. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion that the action and further proceedings be carried on in the name of Eleanor F. B. Nicholas as the plaintiff, she appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and CONLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
Samuel R. Randell, for appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In May, 1886,—nearly 15 years ago,—a default was noted in the above action, and an inquest taken, but no judgment ever entered thereon. The plaintiff moved, after that long lapse of time, for an order that the above-entitled action and all further proceedings therein be carried on in her married name, she having, since the default was noted, married a Mr. Nicholas. No reason was assigned for the long delay, and, although the papers on the motion and on this appeal appear to have been served on the defendant's attorney of record in 1886, no appearance has been made on her behalf either on the motion or on the hearing of the appeal. The claim is stale, and we believe that the order of the special term in denying the plaintiff's application should be affirmed. No costs.