Ingersoll v. Gillies

New York Court of Common Pleas

Ingersoll v. Gillies

3 E.D. Smith 119

DecidedMay 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 3 E.D. Smith 119 (Ingersoll v. Gillies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ingersoll v. Gillies, 3 E.D. Smith 119 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court. Daly, J.

All the objections made to the manner in which the defendants were brought into court, the nature of the summons, the form of it, the manner of taking the security and the return of the constable, were waived, by the defendants pleading to the merits. This we have repeatedly held. The defendants answered before the court passed upon the objections. The objections and the answer were interposed at the same time, when the court adjourned until the following [120]*120day. - On the following day the justice decided against-the defendants upon the objections, and, under the-plea that had been put in, coupled with a demand -for a jury, the cause Was tried before a jury,' and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, the defendants making no-defence. . This was -conclusive upon the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court. Daly, J.

All the objections made to the manner in which the defendants were brought into court, the nature of the summons, the form of it, the manner of taking the security and the return of the constable, were waived, by the defendants pleading to the merits. This we have repeatedly held. The defendants answered before the court passed upon the objections. The objections and the answer were interposed at the same time, when the court adjourned until the following [120]*120day. - On the following day the justice decided against-the defendants upon the objections, and, under the-plea that had been put in, coupled with a demand -for a jury, the cause Was tried before a jury,' and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, the defendants making no-defence. . This was -conclusive upon the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 E.D. Smith 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingersoll-v-gillies-nyctcompl-1854.