Central Bank v. Alden
This text of 41 How. Pr. 102 (Central Bank v. Alden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff served the notice of trial in this action by mail, and dated and mailed said notice on Saturday, the 4th of March, for “sixteen days’” notice of trial, the case being noticed for Monday, March 20. Defendants’ attorney returned notice of trial for irregularity, [106]*106claiming “6 fifteen days only ” being given, as Sunday, the 19th, could not be included in the sixteen days, according to section 407 and section 412 of the Code. Plaintiffs took an inquest. This motion was made to set aside the judgment as irregular and void—no sufficient “notice of trial” having been served. Sunday, the 19th, should be included in computing the sixteen days, and the motion is denied accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
41 How. Pr. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-bank-v-alden-nysupct-1871.