Taylor v. Mayor of New York

New York Supreme Court

Taylor v. Mayor of New York

11 Abb. Pr. 255

DecidedSeptember 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Abb. Pr. 255 (Taylor v. Mayor of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Mayor of New York, 11 Abb. Pr. 255 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.

I suppose the same rule applies to this as to an ordinary suit. When there is no attorney’s name on the papers, then the party is the person to whom the papers are to be returned. Here the party defendant are the Corporation of New York, and you have knowledge from the statute, who their counsel and attorney is. The papers should have been returned to him or to the attorney, or the person acting on the part of the city government. When a technical objection of this kind is made and relied upon, both parties are required to pay strict observance to what the rule is. It was just as much your duty to return, as it was theirs to serve, and I think that you have failed in what was required of you to enable you to take advantage of this objection, and that the motion can be heard notwithstanding.

The motion then proceeded.

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

Ingraham, J.

I suppose the same rule applies to this as to an ordinary suit. When there is no attorney’s name on the papers, then the party is the person to whom the papers are to be returned. Here the party defendant are the Corporation of New York, and you have knowledge from the statute, who their counsel and attorney is. The papers should have been returned to him or to the attorney, or the person acting on the part of the city government. When a technical objection of this kind is made and relied upon, both parties are required to pay strict observance to what the rule is. It was just as much your duty to return, as it was theirs to serve, and I think that you have failed in what was required of you to enable you to take advantage of this objection, and that the motion can be heard notwithstanding.

The motion then proceeded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Abb. Pr. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-mayor-of-new-york-nysupct-1860.