Otis v. Wells

1 Edw. Ch. 83, 1831 N.Y. LEXIS 338, 1831 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 13
CourtNew York Court of Chancery
DecidedAugust 8, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 Edw. Ch. 83 (Otis v. Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Otis v. Wells, 1 Edw. Ch. 83, 1831 N.Y. LEXIS 338, 1831 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 13 (N.Y. 1831).

Opinion

The following was the form of it:

“ On reading and filing an affidavit, proving that a subpoena “ ad revivendum has been duly issued in this cause, directing the .“ above named Thomas Wells to appear therein on a day now *l past, but that the said Thomas Wells could not be found in this " State, intermediate the teste and return of the said subpoena, “ to be served therewith; and that the said Thomas Wells re- “ sides out of this State, and in the county of Hartford, in the State of Connecticut—and, on motion of M. Hoffman, Esq. of ■“ Counsel, for D. S. Jones, Esq. Solicitor: it is ordered, that the “ said Thomas Wells appear in this cause in four months and “ show cause, if any there be, why the original suit commenced in this court by the above named complainant against Lewis '“Richards, James Wells, and Joseph D. Beers, and the pro- [84]*84“ ceedings therein, which became abated by the death of the “said James Wells, should not be revived against the said “ Thomas Wells, as the heir at law of the said James Wells, “deceased, and be in the same plight, state and condition as tlie same were at the time of the abatement thereof, and also, “ to answer the bill of complaint filed in the said original suit: “ and, in default thereof, that such order be entered in this suit “ as shall he considered by the court just and proper. And it “ is further ordered, that the complainant in this suit, within “ twenty days hereafter, cause this order to be published in the “ state paper and in the New York American, and that the said “ publication be continued in each of the said papers at least “ once in each week for eight weeks in succession or tha.t he “ cause a copy of the said order to be personally served on the “said Thomas Wells, at least twenty days before the time “ above prescribed for his appearance.”

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

Related

Ashton v. Penfield
135 S.W. 938 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
State ex rel. Donnell v. Foster
125 S.W. 184 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
Chicago Mutual Life Indemnity Ass'n v. Hunt
2 L.R.A. 549 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Edw. Ch. 83, 1831 N.Y. LEXIS 338, 1831 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otis-v-wells-nychanct-1831.