Corning & Norton v. Pray

2 Wend. 626
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1829·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.

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.

Footnotes

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

Corning & Norton v. Pray, 2 Wend. 626 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

2 Wend. 626 (Corning & Norton v. Pray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elder v. Frevert
18 Nev. 278 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1884)