Lightstone v. Laurencel
FRANK J. LIGHTSTONE v. HENRY LAURENCEL and PETER SANSEVIN
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydenfeeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeeldt
Justice Heydenfeeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a motion of the appellant to set aside the affirmance of judgment made at the last term, and restore the cause to the calendar, on the ground that he had no notice of trial, as was required by the rules of Court then in existence. He also files his affidavit, declaring that he had no actual notice.
We have before decided that we would not disturb a decision for the want of a formal statutory notice, where it appeared clearly that the party had actual notice. In this case, the papers disclose that the appellant did not have the notice required by the rules; the affirmance was for default of his appearance; and *107it is nowhere shewn that he had actual notice. Besides, his affidavit is additional weight to satisfy us that he had not.
The judgment of affirmance must he set aside; and the cause restored to the calendar.