Silliman v. Clark

2 How. Pr. 160
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1846·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Defendants’ counsel insisted that the defendants’ attorney had not been served with notice of trial for the April circuit, and that he had never been served with any notice of application for a reference in the cause; it was referred without his knowledge or consent. •

Jewett, Justice.

Held, that the cause was properly referred, and the notice of trial served on defendants’ attorney, being retained by him, *was sufficient to inform him that the cause would be brought to trial at the April circuit, and at all' events if defendants’ attorney considered it irregular, it was his duty to have returned it immediately. Motion denied, with costs.

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

Silliman v. Clark, 2 How. Pr. 160 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

2 How. Pr. 160 (Silliman v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meislahn v. Hanken
18 N.Y.S. 361 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)