Drake v. Shenandoah Pottery, Inc.
This text of 141 Misc. 471 (Drake v. Shenandoah Pottery, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is a motion to vacate judgment and warrant of attachment. Stipulation entered into between the attorneys dated May 17, 1930, extending defendant’s time to answer does not constitute a general appearance. (Engels v. Ferguson, 79 Misc. 40.) (See, also, Bell v. Good, 19 N. Y. Supp. 693, 696; Benedict v. Arnoux, 38 id. 882; Paine Lumber Co. v. Galbraith, 38 App. Div. 68.)
Defendant is a foreign corporation, not authorized to do business in this State and has no office for the transaction of business in the city of New York. The plaintiff attached defendant’s property by serving summons and complaint on the Long Island Railroad Company, Irving Trust Company and Brooklyn Boiler and Radiator Corporation. This service was not as required by section 229 of the Civil Practice Act.
Service in the instant action is controlled by section 905 of the Civil Practice Act.
Motion to vacate and set aside judgment entered by default on June 5, 1930, is, therefore, granted, and motion to vacate and set aside warrant of attachment dated May 13, 1930, is likewise granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
141 Misc. 471, 252 N.Y.S. 705, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drake-v-shenandoah-pottery-inc-nynyccityct-1930.