People ex rel. Rumsey v. Woods

The Superior Court of New York City

People ex rel. Rumsey v. Woods

2 Sandf. 652

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 15, 1849

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 Sandf. 652 (People ex rel. Rumsey v. Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Rumsey v. Woods, 2 Sandf. 652 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

Sandford, J.,

after advising with Oakley, Ch. J., and Yanderpoel, J., said, the judgment is irregular and must be set aside. The practice contended for on behalf of the plaintiff, would be very unjust. It by no means follows, that because Woods did not defend the original complaint, that he was not desirous to answer to the complaint as amended. He should have been served with notice of the amendment so as to give him an opportunity to answer, if he were so advised.

Rule accordingly.

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

Sandford, J.,

after advising with Oakley, Ch. J., and Yanderpoel, J., said, the judgment is irregular and must be set aside. The practice contended for on behalf of the plaintiff, would be very unjust. It by no means follows, that because Woods did not defend the original complaint, that he was not desirous to answer to the complaint as amended. He should have been served with notice of the amendment so as to give him an opportunity to answer, if he were so advised.

Rule accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Sandf. 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rumsey-v-woods-nysuperctnyc-1849.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack