Kutner v. Hodnett

New York Supreme Court

Kutner v. Hodnett

59 Misc. 21, 109 N.Y.S. 1068

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 59 Misc. 21 (Kutner v. Hodnett) 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.

Bluebook

Kutner v. Hodnett, 59 Misc. 21, 109 N.Y.S. 1068 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Hendrick, J.

I find no case in which it is held that the immunity from service of a summons enjoyed by a nonresident party or witness while in this State in attendance on a litigation in which he is such a party or witness extends to an attorney at law of another State who voluntarily and in pursuance of his business as such attorney comes into this State to conduct a litigation on behalf of a .client. The only nonresidents who appear to be exempt from service while attending court in this State are necessary or interested parties, suitors, witnesses or creditors in bankruptcy. The reason for the exemption of such persons, viz., [22]*22the promotion of the due and efficient administration of justice, fails when it is sought to be applied to foreign attorneys at law, and to extend the rule to them would enable foreign attorneys to practice law constantly in this State, at the same time, extend to them immunity from the process of the courts of this State. Motion for reargnment granted and motion to set aside service of the summons denied.

Motion for a reargument granted and motion to set aside service of summons denied.

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

Hendrick, J.

I find no case in which it is held that the immunity from service of a summons enjoyed by a nonresident party or witness while in this State in attendance on a litigation in which he is such a party or witness extends to an attorney at law of another State who voluntarily and in pursuance of his business as such attorney comes into this State to conduct a litigation on behalf of a .client. The only nonresidents who appear to be exempt from service while attending court in this State are necessary or interested parties, suitors, witnesses or creditors in bankruptcy. The reason for the exemption of such persons, viz., [22]*22the promotion of the due and efficient administration of justice, fails when it is sought to be applied to foreign attorneys at law, and to extend the rule to them would enable foreign attorneys to practice law constantly in this State, at the same time, extend to them immunity from the process of the courts of this State. Motion for reargnment granted and motion to set aside service of the summons denied.

Motion for a reargument granted and motion to set aside service of summons denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Misc. 21, 109 N.Y.S. 1068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kutner-v-hodnett-nysupct-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack