Haven v. Meteer

The Superior Court of New York City

Haven v. Meteer

52 N.Y. St. Rep. 450

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 1, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 450 (Haven v. Meteer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haven v. Meteer, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 450 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appelantsclaim that the defendants had no right to move to dismiss the complaint on the non-appearance of the plaintiffs because there was no proof of a service of notice of trial by defendants upon plaintiffs.

Actual proof was not necessary, nor indeed was service. Without objection, both parties being present, the case was set down for trial and "the day was chosen so that the plaintiff might examine the defendant before trial. The defendant gave consent to the examination. This called the defendants into the trial, so that the plaintiffs could not object afterwards that they had no notice of trial from the defendants. The facts of the case were so peculiar that the discretion of the court below as to costs cannot be reviewed.

Order affirmed, without costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Freedman and McAdam, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The appelantsclaim that the defendants had no right to move to dismiss the complaint on the non-appearance of the plaintiffs because there was no proof of a service of notice of trial by defendants upon plaintiffs.

Actual proof was not necessary, nor indeed was service. Without objection, both parties being present, the case was set down for trial and "the day was chosen so that the plaintiff might examine the defendant before trial. The defendant gave consent to the examination. This called the defendants into the trial, so that the plaintiffs could not object afterwards that they had no notice of trial from the defendants. The facts of the case were so peculiar that the discretion of the court below as to costs cannot be reviewed.

Order affirmed, without costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Freedman and McAdam, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.Y. St. Rep. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haven-v-meteer-nysuperctnyc-1893.