Miller v. Stettiner
The Superior Court of New York City
This motion is made upon the complaint and the affidavit of Simon Stettiner, who states that he is the person served with the summons and complaint, and is the copartner of the defendant Kamps, under the name and firm of Stettiner & Kamps, and that there is no person named Henry Stettiner who is a member of that firm; and the complaint shows that the action is for goods alleged to be sold to the two defendants; and the affidavit of Kamps is also produced to the effect that…
Read the full summary
This motion is made upon the complaint and the affidavit of Simon Stettiner, who states that he is the person served with the summons and complaint, and is the copartner of the defendant Kamps, under the name and firm of Stettiner & Kamps, and that there is no person named Henry Stettiner who is a member of that firm; and the complaint shows that the action is for goods alleged to be sold to the two defendants; and the affidavit of Kamps is also produced to the effect that his copartner’s name is Simon Stettiner, and that there is no person named Henry Stettiner connected with him in…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodruff, J.
—When this motion was made, 1 expressed some surprise that counsel had deemed a motion to set aside the process or proceedings in a cause, on the ground of misnomer of the defendant, warranted by any existing practice, and intimated that since I ¿ame to the bar I had *694not known of such a motion. I was therefore surprised when my attention was called to the case of Elliott v. Hart, (1 How. Pr. R. 25,) in which such a motion 'was granted, and have been induced thereby to examine the subject.
For more than thirty-five years past, no such motion has been entertained -in this State, with the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Waterbury v. MatherNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Mann v. CarleyNew York Supreme Court · 1825
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stuber v. SchuartzNew York Marine Court · 1877