Tuttle v. Hunt
2 Cow. 436
Opinion
The service of the summons by the plaintiff himself was good. The rule adopted in Bennet v. Fuller, (4 John. Rep. 486,) is this: that where no bail is exacted the Sheriff may serve a capias in his own favor ; and any other plaintiff may, under similar circumstances, be deputed to serve his own process. The return was sufficient. (Legg v. Stillman et al. ante, 418.) But the error in admitting proof of the plaintiff’s declaration is fatal, though the Jusice directed the jury to disregard it. (Penfield v. Carpenter, 13 John. 350.)
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tuttle v. Hunt, 2 Cow. 436 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).
2 Cow. 436 (Tuttle v. Hunt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Snyder
67 A. 934 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1907)
Hansford v. Tate
56 S.E. 372 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1907)
Smith v. Burliss
23 Misc. 544 (New York County Courts, 1898)
Warring v. Keeler
67 N.Y. St. Rep. 417 (Chemung County Court, 1895)
Warring v. Keeler
33 N.Y.S. 415 (New York County Courts, 1895)
Morton v. Crane
39 Mich. 526 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Williams v. Murray
2 Abb. Pr. 292 (New York Supreme Court, 1866)
Sparr & Green v. Wellman
11 Mo. 230 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1847)