Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.

267 A.D. 806, 46 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D. 806 (Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co., 267 A.D. 806, 46 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint within five days after service of order with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.; Untermyer, J., concurs on the ground that defendant by reason of its contention, previously maintained successfully in this action, is estopped to contest the validity of service on the Secretary of State (Horn v. Bennett, 253 App. Div. 630; Houghton v. Thomas, 220 App. Div. 41$; see, also, Starbuck v. Starbuck, 173 N. Y. 503); Martin, P. J., dissents. [See post, p. 869.]

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

Determination affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint within five days after service of order with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.; Untermyer, J., concurs on the ground that defendant by reason of its contention, previously maintained successfully in this action, is estopped to contest the validity of service on the Secretary of State (Horn v. Bennett, 253 App. Div. 630; Houghton v. Thomas, 220 App. Div. 41$; see, also, Starbuck v. Starbuck, 173 N. Y. 503); Martin, P. J., dissents. [See post, p. 869.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 806, 46 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pohlers-v-exeter-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack