Given v. Driggs
This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 150 (Given v. Driggs) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Cai. Cas. 150, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/given-v-driggs-nysupct-1805.