Dickinson v. Dickey
This text of 21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617 (Dickinson v. Dickey) 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 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.
Judgment for plaintiff upon submitted case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickinson-v-dickey-nysupct-1878.