Wyckoff v. Packard
Opinion
A clerk in the office of plaintiff’s attorneys, .after many fruitless efforts to serve defendant, who was known to plaintiff to be a resident of Brooklyn, wrote to defendant the following letter :
‘•'New York, October‘28, 1887.
“ Dear Sir,
“ I will call to see you to-morrow, at the office of the Griffin Mfg. Co., in Cortlandt street, at about 12 o’clock noon.
“ Yours, etc.,
“W. F. Cronin.”
“ Mr. Edwin Packard.”
The defendant, supposing that some party desired a business interview, attended, and the writer of the letter served upon him the summons and complaint, which service defendant now moves to set aside.
It would be an affront to any ordinary intelligence to assume that the writer of the letter did not intend to deceive defendant, or that defendant was not thereby misled. The clerk of plaintiff’s attorneys, both in what he said and in what he suppressed, was guilty of trickery, of which it must be assumed his principals were ignorant, but from which' no party can derive any benefit in a court of justice.
The decisions are uniform that such' deceit vitiates the service of legal process,
The motion must be granted, with $10 costs.
Footnotes
See, also, Campbell v. Spencer, 1 How. Pr. 199; Livingston v. McIntyre, Id. 253; where service on the attorneys for the adverse parties was set aside for illegal entry Jnto their offices.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
20 Abb. N. Cas. 420 (Wyckoff v. Packard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.