Union Furnace Co. v. Shepherd
New York Supreme Court
Motion to set aside the service of the declaration on Shepherd, as irregular. The declaration on file was entitled of January term, to wit, the twenty-first day of February, in the term of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. The copy served was the same, except that the year was forty, instead of forty-two.
Read the full summary
Motion to set aside the service of the declaration on Shepherd, as irregular. The declaration on file was entitled of January term, to wit, the twenty-first day of February, in the term of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. The copy served was the same, except that the year was forty, instead of forty-two. To both was attached, as a bill of particulars, a promissory note to which the defendants were parties, dated September 28th, 1841, at 90 days.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
It is impossible that this variance from the title of the declaration on file could have misled Shepherd when compared with the bill of particulars of a note not due on its face till 1842. Whether the defendant can be misled or not, I think furnishes the true test of the service of process, (and this declaration was in the nature of process,) as well as of the service of a notice. It is said that the statute requires that a copy of the declaration should be served; and were we to follow some of the earlier decisions of Westminster Hall on the uniformity of process act,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chase v. Edwards & BullNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Paul v. GravesNew York Supreme Court · 1830