Quick v. Merrill
New York Supreme Court
IT did not appear that notice of retainer of attorney for the defendant, had been received, but notice of bail was admitted, an exception to which was taken, (on amotion to set aside a default, and other proceedings, accompanied by an affidavit of merits,) that it was entituled “ Benajah Merrill ads. Jeunis Quick and the want of notice of retainer was also urged.
1Per curiam
Notice of bail, necessarily imports a notice of retainer as attorney. As to the title of the notice, the ruling principle is, that if the party served be not misled, or the papers be not such as evidently may mislead, a mere clerical misprision shall not prejudice. It does not appear, that there was any other cause depending against Merrill. In liberal practice, the notice ought to have been received, and the objections must therefore be overruled.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cooley v. LawrenceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855
- Warren v. EddyNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- McGuin v. CaceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1859
- Pignolet v. DaveauNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1860