Corning & Norton v. Pray
2 Wend. 626
This text of 2 Wend. 626 (Corning & Norton v. Pray) 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.
Bluebook
Corning & Norton v. Pray, 2 Wend. 626 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).
Opinion
The service was irregular. If the notice could not be personally served on the agent or on his clerk in his office, it should have been delivered to some one of his family. The motion is granted.
In another case, decided this term, a notice served by leaving the same in the office of agent, no one being therein, was pronounced an irregular service.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Elder v. Frevert
18 Nev. 278 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1884)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
2 Wend. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corning-norton-v-pray-nysupct-1829.