Thompson v. Rawlston

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Rawlston

116 N.Y.S. 13

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 116 N.Y.S. 13 (Thompson v. Rawlston) 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

Thompson v. Rawlston, 116 N.Y.S. 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Service of the summons and complaint herein was attempted to be made by substituted service. The Municipal Court act provides that in such a case the order and the papers upon which the same was granted shall be filed six days before the return day of the summons. Section 34, Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1501, c. 580); Dalton v. Mills (Sup.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 734; Stephens v. Molloy, 50 Misc. Rep. 518, 99 N. Y. Supp. 385. The return in this case fails to show this. The papers bear no indorsement showing that they were filed, but do show that the calendar fee was paid on November 7, 1908, which was three days before the return day of the summons. There is nothing, however, in the record, showing that they were not filed, and an amended return may show that they were filed within the proper time.

The record will therefore be returned to the lower court for amendment, if one can properly be made thereto.

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

PER CURIAM.

Service of the summons and complaint herein was attempted to be made by substituted service. The Municipal Court act provides that in such a case the order and the papers upon which the same was granted shall be filed six days before the return day of the summons. Section 34, Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1501, c. 580); Dalton v. Mills (Sup.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 734; Stephens v. Molloy, 50 Misc. Rep. 518, 99 N. Y. Supp. 385. The return in this case fails to show this. The papers bear no indorsement showing that they were filed, but do show that the calendar fee was paid on November 7, 1908, which was three days before the return day of the summons. There is nothing, however, in the record, showing that they were not filed, and an amended return may show that they were filed within the proper time.

The record will therefore be returned to the lower court for amendment, if one can properly be made thereto.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.Y.S. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-rawlston-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack