Lederer v. Adams

New York Supreme Court

Lederer v. Adams

11 N.Y.S. 481, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 799, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2181

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 24, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 481 (Lederer v. Adams) 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

Lederer v. Adams, 11 N.Y.S. 481, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 799, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2181 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Brady, J.

The only difference between this case and that of Thorp v. Adams, ante, 479, decided herewith, is that the defendant was served intermediate the day of his arrival and his examination, which occurred on the 19th of May last; and the point presented is that the motion should have been denied upon the ground of the loches of the defendant in making the motion. The summons was served on the 16th of May last, and the order to show cause was not granted until the 5th of June, the affidavit on which it was founded not being verified until the 3d of June. There is no such force in this point as to require a reversal of the order. The motion could properly be made at any time before the time to answer had expired, and the defendant was not, under the circumstances, called upon to exercise any extraordinary vigilance. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

Brady, J.

The only difference between this case and that of Thorp v. Adams, ante, 479, decided herewith, is that the defendant was served intermediate the day of his arrival and his examination, which occurred on the 19th of May last; and the point presented is that the motion should have been denied upon the ground of the loches of the defendant in making the motion. The summons was served on the 16th of May last, and the order to show cause was not granted until the 5th of June, the affidavit on which it was founded not being verified until the 3d of June. There is no such force in this point as to require a reversal of the order. The motion could properly be made at any time before the time to answer had expired, and the defendant was not, under the circumstances, called upon to exercise any extraordinary vigilance. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 481, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 799, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lederer-v-adams-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack