People ex rel. Ellinghausen v. Leask

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Ellinghausen v. Leask

1 Abb. N. Cas. 299

DecidedDecember 15, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Abb. N. Cas. 299 (People ex rel. Ellinghausen v. Leask) 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

People ex rel. Ellinghausen v. Leask, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 299 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, P. J.

If the marshal returned the summons, “ defendant not found,” at any time after the lapse of the time within which it could be lawfully served, the plaintiff on demand was entitled to an alias summons, without waiting till the return day named in the summons. The demurrer is therefore well taken, and the relator is entitled to peremptory mandamus. It is, however, too late to be of any practical value to him so far as relates to the issuing of the mandamus. Relator is entitled to costs.

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

Davis, P. J.

If the marshal returned the summons, “ defendant not found,” at any time after the lapse of the time within which it could be lawfully served, the plaintiff on demand was entitled to an alias summons, without waiting till the return day named in the summons. The demurrer is therefore well taken, and the relator is entitled to peremptory mandamus. It is, however, too late to be of any practical value to him so far as relates to the issuing of the mandamus. Relator is entitled to costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Abb. N. Cas. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ellinghausen-v-leask-nysupct-1876.