Ex parte Green v. Oneida Common Pleas

10 Wend. 592
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1833·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The common pleas did right in setting aside the proceedings. Where a suit is commenced in the common pleas of one county, the declaration cannot be served in another county. The provision in the statute that the service of a declaration may be by a sheriff, and that he may be ruled to return it, Laws of 1833, p. 394, § 2, implies ¡that the service is to be in the county in the court of which [593]*593the declaration is filed. A declaration in a suit .commenced by declaration is analogous to process, and process in a suit commenced in the common pleas of one county cannot be served in another. It would not be the regular and orderly conduct of a suit to file a bill against an officer of a court in one county, and serve him with a copy of such bill in another, and upon the same principle the service of the copy of the declaration in this case was irregular.

Motion denied.

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

Ex parte Green v. Oneida Common Pleas, 10 Wend. 592 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1833).

10 Wend. 592 (Ex parte Green v. Oneida Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shepard v. Wright
59 How. Pr. 512 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Stevens v. Stevens
3 Redf. 507 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1878)