Jackson v. Lurie

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. Lurie

49 Misc. 634, 97 N.Y.S. 1040

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 634 (Jackson v. Lurie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Lurie, 49 Misc. 634, 97 N.Y.S. 1040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Scott, J.

We find no occasion to review the decision of the justice below respecting the due service of the nummons, [635]*635even if that question is properly before us. There is nothing in the record to sustain the plaintiff’s judgment. The complaint was oral and, of course, unverified. It does not apear from the return that any evidence or proof of any kind was taken by the justice as a foundation for his judgment, and there is absolutely nothing to sustain it. Even if we assume that the defendant was properly served and that the judgment was taken upon his default (the most favorable assumption possible for the plaintiff), still an appeal lies from the judgment; and, as there was no proof of the plaintiff’s claim, a reversal must follow. Hurry v. Coffin, 11 Daly, 180.

Giegebich and Gbeenbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide event.

The appeal from the order need not be considered and it will be dismissed, without costs to either party.

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

Scott, J.

We find no occasion to review the decision of the justice below respecting the due service of the nummons, [635]*635even if that question is properly before us. There is nothing in the record to sustain the plaintiff’s judgment. The complaint was oral and, of course, unverified. It does not apear from the return that any evidence or proof of any kind was taken by the justice as a foundation for his judgment, and there is absolutely nothing to sustain it. Even if we assume that the defendant was properly served and that the judgment was taken upon his default (the most favorable assumption possible for the plaintiff), still an appeal lies from the judgment; and, as there was no proof of the plaintiff’s claim, a reversal must follow. Hurry v. Coffin, 11 Daly, 180.

Giegebich and Gbeenbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide event.

The appeal from the order need not be considered and it will be dismissed, without costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 634, 97 N.Y.S. 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-lurie-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack