Oothout v. Rhinelander

New York Supreme Court

Oothout v. Rhinelander

10 How. Pr. 460

DecidedMarch 15, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 10 How. Pr. 460 (Oothout v. Rhinelander) 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

Oothout v. Rhinelander, 10 How. Pr. 460 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Hand, Justice.

I-think the service sufficient, notwithstanding the address did not state the number of the street, or even [461]*461the street; but was merely directed to the attorneys of the defendant in “ New-York.” The latter required the direction to include the street and number designated by them. This is safer; and sometimes, when directed to a person in a city, has been deemed necessary on service of notice of non-acceptance of bills of exchange, &c., at least in England. (Chit, on Bills, 474; Bayl. on Bills, 280, 283; and see 3 M. & W. 166; Ry. & Mood. 149, 249; Story on Bills, § 298, and note.) And, probably, the package in this case was lost for want of more particularity. Still, I think it is better to have a uniform rule; and I believe the expression, “ at his place of residence,” used in § 411 of the Code, has been deemed to relate to the post-office, and not to any particular locality in a town or city. (See Rowell agt. M'Cormick, 5 How. Pr. R. 337.) That will generally be sufficient. Had the attorney for the plaintiff been informed there were other firms of the same style, or of any other circumstance rendering further designation necessary, a non-compliance with the request to specify the locality might have been evidence of bad faith.

The motion to dismiss must be denied; but the plaintiff must serve another copy, or file the complaint with the clerk.

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

Hand, Justice.

I-think the service sufficient, notwithstanding the address did not state the number of the street, or even [461]*461the street; but was merely directed to the attorneys of the defendant in “ New-York.” The latter required the direction to include the street and number designated by them. This is safer; and sometimes, when directed to a person in a city, has been deemed necessary on service of notice of non-acceptance of bills of exchange, &c., at least in England. (Chit, on Bills, 474; Bayl. on Bills, 280, 283; and see 3 M. & W. 166; Ry. & Mood. 149, 249; Story on Bills, § 298, and note.) And, probably, the package in this case was lost for want of more particularity. Still, I think it is better to have a uniform rule; and I believe the expression, “ at his place of residence,” used in § 411 of the Code, has been deemed to relate to the post-office, and not to any particular locality in a town or city. (See Rowell agt. M'Cormick, 5 How. Pr. R. 337.) That will generally be sufficient. Had the attorney for the plaintiff been informed there were other firms of the same style, or of any other circumstance rendering further designation necessary, a non-compliance with the request to specify the locality might have been evidence of bad faith.

The motion to dismiss must be denied; but the plaintiff must serve another copy, or file the complaint with the clerk.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 How. Pr. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oothout-v-rhinelander-nysupct-1855.