Ritchie v. Seaboard Nat. Bank

32 N.Y.S. 1073, 12 Misc. 146, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 357
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided April 1, 1895·Published

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The determination below that the plaintiff’s

motion for a preference should be denied is clearly to be supported. In order that the right to a preference under section 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be preserved and successfully invoked, it is essential that the party desiring the preference “serve upon the opposite party, with his notice of trial, a notice that an application will be made to the court at the opening thereof, for leave to move the same as a preferred cause.” Code Civ. Proc. § 793. In the present case, no notice of trial having ever been served, it results that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements deprived him of the benefit sought to be availed of. Fox v. Quinn, 12 N. Y. Supp. 725. Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Ritchie v. Seaboard Nat. Bank, 32 N.Y.S. 1073, 12 Misc. 146, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 357 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

32 N.Y.S. 1073 (Ritchie v. Seaboard Nat. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fox v. Quinn
12 N.Y.S. 725 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1890)