Hero Fruit-Jar Co. v. Grant

New York Supreme Court

Hero Fruit-Jar Co. v. Grant

11 N.Y.S. 28, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 209, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 581

DecidedJune 6, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 28 (Hero Fruit-Jar Co. v. Grant) 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.

Bluebook

Hero Fruit-Jar Co. v. Grant, 11 N.Y.S. 28, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 209, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 581 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The condition upon which applications of this kind may be granted is that, where the application is made by the officer, notice thereof must be given to the indemnitor or his attorney, and also to the attorney for the plaintiff. In this case no notice whatever was given to the indemnitors- and the only service was upon the attorney for the plaintiff, who it is said acted for the indemnitors in and about giving the indemnity. It is clear that this notice was entirely insufficient, as the attorney in procuring the indemnity was acting for the plaintiff, and in no manner represented the interest of the indemnitors. The language of the Code is explicit that notice must be given to the indemnitors or their attorney, and also to the attorney for the plaintiff. The point that this objection was not taken below cannot avail, because, without proof of such notice, the court never acquired jurisdiction-The order appealed from should bereversed, with $10 costs and disbursements-

All concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The condition upon which applications of this kind may be granted is that, where the application is made by the officer, notice thereof must be given to the indemnitor or his attorney, and also to the attorney for the plaintiff. In this case no notice whatever was given to the indemnitors- and the only service was upon the attorney for the plaintiff, who it is said acted for the indemnitors in and about giving the indemnity. It is clear that this notice was entirely insufficient, as the attorney in procuring the indemnity was acting for the plaintiff, and in no manner represented the interest of the indemnitors. The language of the Code is explicit that notice must be given to the indemnitors or their attorney, and also to the attorney for the plaintiff. The point that this objection was not taken below cannot avail, because, without proof of such notice, the court never acquired jurisdiction-The order appealed from should bereversed, with $10 costs and disbursements-

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 28, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 209, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hero-fruit-jar-co-v-grant-nysupct-1890.