Wyckoff v. Packard

20 Abb. N. Cas. 420
City of New York Municipal Court·Decided November 15, 1887·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Erlich, J.

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,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wyckoff v. Packard, 20 Abb. N. Cas. 420 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

20 Abb. N. Cas. 420 (Wyckoff v. Packard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garabettian v. Garabettian
206 A.D. 502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Allen v. Wharton
13 N.Y.S. 38 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Higgins v. Dewey
13 N.Y.S. 570 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)