Cunningham v. Goelet
New York Supreme Court
Summary proceedings to recover possession of demised premises. On the 2d of May, 1846, an affidavit was made before one of the aldermen of the city of New-York, as follows: “ City and county of New-York, ss.
Read the full summary
Summary proceedings to recover possession of demised premises. On the 2d of May, 1846, an affidavit was made before one of the aldermen of the city of New-York, as follows: “ City and county of New-York, ss. Patrick Henry, agent for Peter Goelet, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that on or about the first day of April, 1843, said Goelet rented unto Francis Cunningham the house No. 20 Morris-street in the city of New-York, for the term of three years from the first day of May then next, which said term has expired, and that he or his assigns hold over and continue in possession of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, Ch. J.
Although Henry in his affidavit describes himself as agent for Goelet, he does not swear that he was such agent. (Ex parte Bank of Monroe, 7 Hill, 177. Ex parte Aldrich, 1 Denio, 662.) The summons was also defective. It was not directed to any body, and Cunningham was no where named in it. (See Hill v. Stocking, 6 Hill, 314.) It is said that Cunningham waived all objections to the affidavit and summons by appearing. He did not appear for any other purpose than that of objecting to the sufficiency of the proceedings; and it would be strange indeed if that could be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ex parte AldrichCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
3Cited by14 opinions
- Odell v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1881
- Steinbach v. LeeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- State v. Board of County CommissionersNevada Supreme Court · 1869
- Deuel v. RustNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Graham v. SpencerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1882
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.