Shapiro v. Goldberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. Goldberg

31 Misc. 755, 64 N.Y.S. 88

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 755 (Shapiro v. Goldberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shapiro v. Goldberg, 31 Misc. 755, 64 N.Y.S. 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam.

The marshal’s return completely ignores the requirements of sections 1321 and 1326 of the Consolidation Act.

The mere mailing of the summons and attachment is ineffectual without posting copies of the same on the door of defendant’s residence; and where such service is made the return must recite the reasons for not making personal service. The summons not having been properly served the court never acquired jurisdiction, and the judgment must he reversed.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Giegebioh and O’Gobmah, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

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

Per Guriam.

The marshal’s return completely ignores the requirements of sections 1321 and 1326 of the Consolidation Act.

The mere mailing of the summons and attachment is ineffectual without posting copies of the same on the door of defendant’s residence; and where such service is made the return must recite the reasons for not making personal service. The summons not having been properly served the court never acquired jurisdiction, and the judgment must he reversed.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Giegebioh and O’Gobmah, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 755, 64 N.Y.S. 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-goldberg-nyappterm-1900.