Given v. Driggs

3 Cai. Cas. 150, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 485
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1805·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

In the case of Bennet adsm. Vielie, July term, 1802, it was decided, that the party must be warned or he is not bound to take notice of the proceedings, and in Harvey adsm. Hildrith, January term, 1803, we ruled that the defendant must have personal notice, or such as the court would deem tantamount. Our statute, like that of Hen. 4, requires a warning, and the personal service here, was a sufficient one, without any rule of court. The defendant was grossly in default, as nine months elapsed before the plaintiff went on. We think SO days a sufficient and reasonable notice in these cases. You can therefore take nothing by your motion.

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

Given v. Driggs, 3 Cai. Cas. 150, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 485 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

3 Cai. Cas. 150 (Given v. Driggs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chilson v. Howe
5 N.Y.S. 780 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Wilkinson v. Tilden
14 F. 778 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1883)