Hudson v. Henry
This text of 1 Cai. Cas. 67 (Hudson v. Henry) 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
The service is insufficient.
Motion refused.
For the modes of service, see Caines’ Prac. 21, 45. In addition to which, it has been ruled, that service on the- attorney, or his clerk, while in the office, though out of office hours, is good. Cooper v. Carr, 8 Johns. Rep. 360. So on an agent in Utica. Chapman v. Raymond, ibid. 360. But observe, on error from the common pleas, and no attorney employed, service must be on the defendant to join in error. Clement v. Crossman, ibid. 281.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Cai. Cas. 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-henry-nysupct-1803.