Brown v. Childs
17 Johns. 1
Opinion
When an attorney is sued by writ, he is entitled to personal service of all notices, &c. in the same [8]*8manner as if he was sued by bill. We see no reason for any distinction in this respect. We should grant the motion, if a term had not intervened since the default was entered. The application on the part of the defendant ought to have been made at the last term, and we must, therefore, deny the motion.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brown v. Childs, 17 Johns. 1 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).
17 Johns. 1 (Brown v. Childs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re Bruni
1 Barb. 187 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)
Murray v. Judah
6 Cow. 484 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)