Thompson v. Fort Miller Pulp & Paper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Fort Miller Pulp & Paper Co.

206 A.D. 809

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thompson v. Fort Miller Pulp & Paper Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 195 A.D. 271 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 15, 1923·Published

Opinion

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Cochrane, P. J., H. T. Kellogg, Van Kirk, Hinman and McCann, JJ. Margaret M. Toole, Respondent, v. Cecelia A. Larkin, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.—■ Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that section 230 of the Civil Practice Act should be read in connection with sections 1033 and 1058 of said act, which latter sections indicate that substituted service of a summons is not effective in a partition action. Cochrane, P. J., Van Kirk, Hinman and McCann, JJ., concur; H. T. Kellogg, J., dissents.

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

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Cochrane, P. J., H. T. Kellogg, Van Kirk, Hinman and McCann, JJ. Margaret M. Toole, Respondent, v. Cecelia A. Larkin, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.—■ Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that section 230 of the Civil Practice Act should be read in connection with sections 1033 and 1058 of said act, which latter sections indicate that substituted service of a summons is not effective in a partition action. Cochrane, P. J., Van Kirk, Hinman and McCann, JJ., concur; H. T. Kellogg, J., dissents.

Thompson v. Fort Miller Pulp & Paper Co., 206 A.D. 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

206 A.D. 809 (Thompson v. Fort Miller Pulp & Paper Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.