Correll v. Granget

Superior Court of New York

Correll v. Granget

34 N.Y.S. 25, 12 Misc. 209

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedApril 15, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 25 (Correll v. Granget) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Correll v. Granget, 34 N.Y.S. 25, 12 Misc. 209 (superctny 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

It seems to me that the preponderance of .evidence shows that the service of the summons and complaint was irregular. Defendant presents the affidavit of a disinterested eyewitness, in addition to her own, stating that a stranger came into the room in which defendant happened to be at the time, and, without asking for defendant by name, nor stating the nature of the papers, deposited them in a chair, and directly afterwards departed, without offering to deliver them into defendant’s hands. This was not a good service. The papers should have been handed to defendant, and, if she refused to take them, the server should have informed defendant of the nature of the papers, and of his purpose to make service of them, and then he should have laid them down at any appropriate place in the presence of the defendant See Davison v. Baker, 24 How. Pr. 39. It therefore seems to me that the motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint must be granted, but without costs. Motion granted, without costs.

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

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

It seems to me that the preponderance of .evidence shows that the service of the summons and complaint was irregular. Defendant presents the affidavit of a disinterested eyewitness, in addition to her own, stating that a stranger came into the room in which defendant happened to be at the time, and, without asking for defendant by name, nor stating the nature of the papers, deposited them in a chair, and directly afterwards departed, without offering to deliver them into defendant’s hands. This was not a good service. The papers should have been handed to defendant, and, if she refused to take them, the server should have informed defendant of the nature of the papers, and of his purpose to make service of them, and then he should have laid them down at any appropriate place in the presence of the defendant See Davison v. Baker, 24 How. Pr. 39. It therefore seems to me that the motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint must be granted, but without costs. Motion granted, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 25, 12 Misc. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/correll-v-granget-superctny-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack