Bray v. Andreas
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from the sixth district court. The parties having appeared, the plaintiff complained for work and materials, and the defendant answered by a general denial, and alleged that his contract with the plaintiff had been rescinded. The defendant then objected to the process, on the ground that the cause of action was not stated therein. This objection was overruled, and an adjournment was taken.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the sixth district court. The parties having appeared, the plaintiff complained for work and materials, and the defendant answered by a general denial, and alleged that his contract with the plaintiff had been rescinded. The defendant then objected to the process, on the ground that the cause of action was not stated therein. This objection was overruled, and an adjournment was taken. The summons contained the words, “to answer the complaint of Joseph W. Bray and Thomas Hetherington, in an action on contract, to their damage one hundred dollars, or under.” On the adjourned day,…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Woodruff, J.
We can discover no sufficient reason for reconsidering the decision of this court, in Cole v. Chamberlain and another case, decided in April, 1850. (See 2 Code Reporter, p. 142.) On the contrary, we repeat, as the statute relating to the summons to he issued by the justices courts of this city is explicit, that the summons must require the defendant to appear to answer the plaintiff “ of a plea in the same summons to be mentioned/” and this provision has been *389in no manner altered nor repealed by the code. (See act to reduce, &c., 2 Rev. L. 371, &c., § 87. Laws relating to the city of New…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cook v. Ferral's AdministratorsNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Taylor v. HeathNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Stoddard v. HolmesNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Williams v. PriceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1848