Atlantic Mortgage Co. v. Rosenfeld

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Atlantic Mortgage Co. v. Rosenfeld

2 N.J. Misc. 861, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 132

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedSeptember 12, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 861 (Atlantic Mortgage Co. v. Rosenfeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlantic Mortgage Co. v. Rosenfeld, 2 N.J. Misc. 861, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 132 (N.J. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingersoll, V. C.

The only question before the court is the question whether or not service was made. The return of the sheriff, of course, is piima facie, proof that service was made, but, in the face of the denial, both by the defendant and his wife, of such service, raises that issue plainly. The affidavit of the sheriff, When I heard it read, seemed to me to leave the question very much in doubt. He failed at that time to say that the party whom he afterwards met as Mrs. Rosenfeld, and who evidently was Mrs. Rosenfeld, because she makes affidavit of the meeting, was the woman upon whom he served. He substantiates that when put upon the stand. He fails to recognize her as the woman upon whom he made service, and I fully appreciate the difficulty of making service in matters of this sort, but, if it was served upon anyone else but Mrs. Rosenfeld, the return of the service is insufficient, there is no attempt to amend it by being shown that it was served on some other member of the family. That, of course, under the circumstances, could not now be done because the sheriff does not know. In view of the fact that the sheriff is un[862]*862able now to say upon whom he made this service, whether or not he was correct in assuming or in accepting the statement upon 'whom he served that she was Mrs. Eosenfeld, in the face of the direct denial, I am compelled to grant the order. You may prepare such an order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ingersoll, V. C.

The only question before the court is the question whether or not service was made. The return of the sheriff, of course, is piima facie, proof that service was made, but, in the face of the denial, both by the defendant and his wife, of such service, raises that issue plainly. The affidavit of the sheriff, When I heard it read, seemed to me to leave the question very much in doubt. He failed at that time to say that the party whom he afterwards met as Mrs. Rosenfeld, and who evidently was Mrs. Rosenfeld, because she makes affidavit of the meeting, was the woman upon whom he served. He substantiates that when put upon the stand. He fails to recognize her as the woman upon whom he made service, and I fully appreciate the difficulty of making service in matters of this sort, but, if it was served upon anyone else but Mrs. Rosenfeld, the return of the service is insufficient, there is no attempt to amend it by being shown that it was served on some other member of the family. That, of course, under the circumstances, could not now be done because the sheriff does not know. In view of the fact that the sheriff is un[862]*862able now to say upon whom he made this service, whether or not he was correct in assuming or in accepting the statement upon 'whom he served that she was Mrs. Eosenfeld, in the face of the direct denial, I am compelled to grant the order. You may prepare such an order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 861, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-mortgage-co-v-rosenfeld-njch-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack