Hartman v. Williams
ISAAC HARTMAN v. ISAAC WILLIAMS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydeneeldt (author), William J. Murray, Jr.
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 — Heydeneeldt
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
The only question necessary to consider, is whether a judgment, final by default, can be rendered properly [256] upon an ^unliquidated demand. The practice is a new one, and appeared, at first, unfavorably. Upon an examination, however, of section 150 of the Practice Act, there remains no doubt as to its correctness, and when it is generally understood, we see no danger to be apprehended from it. The defendant being notified in the summons, of the amount for which the plaintiff will take judgment, is saved the necessity and expense, if he has no defense,. of appearing to the action, to protect himself against an improper recovery; while, on the other hand, the plaintiff avoids the delay and trouble of resorting to a writ of inquiry, for the purpose of having his damages assessed.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Johnson v. Vance No. 13569 · 1890-09-30