Haven v. Meteer

Superior Court of New York

Haven v. Meteer

23 N.Y.S. 192

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 1, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.Y.S. 192 (Haven v. Meteer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haven v. Meteer, 23 N.Y.S. 192 (superctny 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants’ claim that the defendants had no right to move to dismiss the complaint on the nonappearance 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 plaintiffs might examine the defendants before trial. The defendants gave consent to the examination. This called the defendants into the trial, so that the plaintiffs could not object after-wards that they had 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. All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants’ claim that the defendants had no right to move to dismiss the complaint on the nonappearance 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 plaintiffs might examine the defendants before trial. The defendants gave consent to the examination. This called the defendants into the trial, so that the plaintiffs could not object after-wards that they had 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. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.Y.S. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haven-v-meteer-superctny-1893.