Underwood v. Irving
3 Cow. 59
Opinion
We do not view the matter in this light. The first order made pursuant to the statute had been disregarded: The 10 weeks advertisement was necessary to give the commissioner jurisdiction. Till this was done, he had no authority. and the second order was a nullity. The assignment must probably share the same fate, though it is not necessary to pass upon the effect of this ; and we must not be understood as doing so. We are not to be guided by a consideration of the embarrassment which may arise from that act.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Underwood v. Irving, 3 Cow. 59 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1824).
3 Cow. 59 (Underwood v. Irving) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dieckerhoff v. Ahlborn
2 Abb. N. Cas. 372 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
Lewis v. Page
8 Abb. Pr. 200 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1869)
Small v. Wheaton
2 Abb. Pr. 175 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1855)