In re Lockwood

New York City Court

In re Lockwood

32 How. Pr. 437

DecidedMarch 15, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 32 How. Pr. 437 (In re Lockwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Lockwood, 32 How. Pr. 437 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, City Judge.

The prisoner is discharged on the ground that the court martial did not acquire jurisdiction to try the relator.

The statute (Laws of 1862, chap. 477, § 210), requires the service of summons to appear before the court to be made personally or by leaving such summons at the residence of the party to be served.

In the case of the relator, the summons was left at 22 Court street, which is not shown to have been his residence, and in fact was conceded on the argument, was his office.

The relator did not appear in response to the summons, and his case was never properly before the court martial for trial.

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

Reynolds, City Judge.

The prisoner is discharged on the ground that the court martial did not acquire jurisdiction to try the relator.

The statute (Laws of 1862, chap. 477, § 210), requires the service of summons to appear before the court to be made personally or by leaving such summons at the residence of the party to be served.

In the case of the relator, the summons was left at 22 Court street, which is not shown to have been his residence, and in fact was conceded on the argument, was his office.

The relator did not appear in response to the summons, and his case was never properly before the court martial for trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 How. Pr. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lockwood-nycityct-1867.