Casey v. White

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Casey v. White

48 Misc. 659, 96 N.Y.S. 190

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 48 Misc. 659 (Casey v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey v. White, 48 Misc. 659, 96 N.Y.S. 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon substituted service of a summons, issued upon professed observance of sections 32 and 33 of the Municipal Court Act, upon affidavits asserting that “ defendant resides out of the City of New York, to wit, at Larchmont, County of Westchester;” that defendant “ maintains an office for the transaction of business at 51 Liberty Street in the City of New York and conducts business under the name of Charles White & Co.; ” that, although one of the plaintiff's attorneys “ is informed and believes that said defendant is in the State, he avoids service thereof; ” and a statement of a city marshal that he, after due and diligent search, was unable to find the defendant; with an affidavit of one Bernstein to the like conclusion. These are not sufficient to warrant the issue of the summons as the basis of the judgment.

Present: Scott, Gildersleeve and MacLeah, JJ.

¡Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon substituted service of a summons, issued upon professed observance of sections 32 and 33 of the Municipal Court Act, upon affidavits asserting that “ defendant resides out of the City of New York, to wit, at Larchmont, County of Westchester;” that defendant “ maintains an office for the transaction of business at 51 Liberty Street in the City of New York and conducts business under the name of Charles White & Co.; ” that, although one of the plaintiff's attorneys “ is informed and believes that said defendant is in the State, he avoids service thereof; ” and a statement of a city marshal that he, after due and diligent search, was unable to find the defendant; with an affidavit of one Bernstein to the like conclusion. These are not sufficient to warrant the issue of the summons as the basis of the judgment.

Present: Scott, Gildersleeve and MacLeah, JJ.

¡Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Misc. 659, 96 N.Y.S. 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-white-nyappterm-1905.