Dickinson v. Dickey

21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617
New York Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1878·Published

Opinion

Gilbert, J.:

The sale by the referee, instead of the sheriff, was in accordance with the judgment. At most, it was a mere irregularity in practice. The parties to the suit might waive it, and that is the test between an irregularity and a nullity. (Clapp v. Graves, 26 N. Y., 418.) The court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. The judgment, therefore, was valid, even if it was erroneous in directing the sale to be made by a referee. We are of opinion, therefore, that the objection to the title is not a good one.

Judgment accordingly, with costs to the plaintiff.

Presents-Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Judgment for plaintiff upon submitted case.

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

Dickinson v. Dickey, 21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617 (Dickinson v. Dickey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clapp v. . Graves
26 N.Y. 418 (New York Court of Appeals, 1863)