Vesell v. Schreiber
104 N.Y.S. 915
Opinion
The defendant having appeared upon the return day, the jurisdiction of the court was complete, and the denial of the motion to open the default upon the ground specified in the order, “that the court was without jurisdiction,” was error. Bevins & Rogers, App. Term Pr. c. 10, § 111; Elfenbein v. Rosenthal, 47 Misc. Rep. 380, 94 N. Y. Supp. 40; Droege v. Hertz et al. (Sup.) 95 N. Y. Supp. 570; Wolfert v. N. Y. City Ry. Co. (Sup.) 103 N. Y. Supp. 768.
Order reversed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Vesell v. Schreiber, 104 N.Y.S. 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).
104 N.Y.S. 915 (Vesell v. Schreiber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Elfenbein v. Rosenthal
47 Misc. 380 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Droege v. Herz
48 Misc. 346 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Wolfert v. New York City Railway Co.
53 Misc. 536 (New York Supreme Court, 1907)