Jones v. Dillihanty
Supreme Court of Vermont
Exceptions from the city court of Rutland. Assumpsit. The defendant resided in the state of New York, and the only service upon him was by leaving a copy for him with the trustee and by publication. Judgment against the principal defendant by default and against the trustee upon his disclosure. The trustee objected that sufficient service had not been made upon the defendant and excepted to the judgment of the court overruling this objection.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the city court of Rutland. Assumpsit. The defendant resided in the state of New York, and the only service upon him was by leaving a copy for him with the trustee and by publication. Judgment against the principal defendant by default and against the trustee upon his disclosure. The trustee objected that sufficient service had not been made upon the defendant and excepted to the judgment of the court overruling this objection. The judgment against the principal defendant without notice is not binding upon him and would not protect the trustee. Ward v. Boyce, 80 Hun. 499 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, J.
The action was commenced by trustee process, returnable before the city court of Rutland. The principal defendant being a non-resident and absent from the state, the writ was served on him by leaving a copy thereof with the trustee, as is required by V. S., s. 1319. The court continued the cause, pursuant to V. S., s. 1645, for notice to the defendant, and judgment was finally rendered against him by default, and the trustee adjudged liable. The only question presented for consideration by counsel for the trustee, is whether notice should have been given to the defendant by serving the writ…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wade v. Wade's Admr.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- Swanton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Vermont · 1931