Totten v. Monell
This text of 6 Abb. Pr. 288 (Totten v. Monell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Brady, J. The defendant was sued in the District Court for the first judicial district of this city, by summons issued December 29, 1857, which, together with a verified complaint, and a notice of the intended examination of the defendant in his own behalf, was served on December 31,1857, the summons being returnable on January 8, 1858. On thé return day, the cause was duly adjourned to January 15,1858, and no other notice of the examination of the plaintiff was served.
Upon the trial, the defendant objected to the examination of the plaintiff, upon the grounds that the notice should have been served ten days before the return day in the summons, and that, if the plaintiff could no.t have been examined on that day under the notice served, he could not be at any subsequent period.
The statute referred to (Code,.§ 399) provides that a party may be examined in his own behalf, the same as any other witness, but that such examination shall not be had unless ten days’ notice of such intended examination shall be given in writing to the adverse party.
[290]*290Upon the other questions presented, we held, on the argument, that the rulings of the justice were proper; and the finding of the justice being sustained by the evidence, the judgment must be affirmed.
By the amendment of 1858, it is provided, that in all other cases than actions in courts of record, where ten days notice is still requisite, the length of notice shall be four days.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Abb. Pr. 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/totten-v-monell-nyctcompl-1858.