Ritchie v. Seaboard Nat. Bank

New York Court of Common Pleas

Ritchie v. Seaboard Nat. Bank

32 N.Y.S. 1073, 12 Misc. 146, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 357

DecidedApril 1, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 1073 (Ritchie v. Seaboard Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 1073, 12 Misc. 146, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritchie-v-seaboard-nat-bank-nyctcompl-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack