New York Pattern Co. v. Galton

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Pattern Co. v. Galton

153 Misc. 424, 275 N.Y.S. 178, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1776

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 31, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 153 Misc. 424 (New York Pattern Co. v. Galton) 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

New York Pattern Co. v. Galton, 153 Misc. 424, 275 N.Y.S. 178, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The attempted service by registered mail was ineffective in that the papers were refused, apparently in good faith, because the defendant’s correct name was “ Frank E. Galton ” and the papers were addressed to “ Frederick E. Galton.” Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that “ Frank ” was defendant’s correct name. (Mun. Ct. Code, § 48.) Under the circumstances no jurisdiction was acquired of defendant.

•Order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, warrant of attachment and levy on the ground that the papers were never served in accordance with the statute, reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion granted. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to strike out warrant of attachment dismissed.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The attempted service by registered mail was ineffective in that the papers were refused, apparently in good faith, because the defendant’s correct name was “ Frank E. Galton ” and the papers were addressed to “ Frederick E. Galton.” Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that “ Frank ” was defendant’s correct name. (Mun. Ct. Code, § 48.) Under the circumstances no jurisdiction was acquired of defendant.

•Order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, warrant of attachment and levy on the ground that the papers were never served in accordance with the statute, reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion granted. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to strike out warrant of attachment dismissed.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 Misc. 424, 275 N.Y.S. 178, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-pattern-co-v-galton-nyappterm-1934.