Hudson v. Henry
1 Cai. Cas. 67
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
Hudson v. Henry, 1 Cai. Cas. 67 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1803).
1 Cai. Cas. 67 (Hudson v. Henry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ryan v. Hornblass
151 Misc. 157 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
Clark v. M'Farland
10 Wend. 634 (New York Supreme Court, 1834)