Bedell v. Sturta
The Superior Court of New York City
The defendant moves to vacate an order of arrest, by virtue of which, he is now held in custody. It was granted on the 10th of October, 1857. An amended answer to the complaint was put in, on the 12th of December. The original summons is entitled in the Supreme Court. The copy served is not produced, and how that was entitled does not appear. The notice of motion does not point out this irregularity.
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
As the cause of action is one which would authorize an execution'against the body, in case of a recovery, the order will not be vacated merely because the cause of action is denied. The opposing affidavits sustain that on which the order was granted. The complaint will not be set aside after an answer put in, merely because the summons was irregular. If the order of arrest is not wholly void, it should not be set aside for such irregularity, on a motion made after answer; if wholly void, the defendant does not need the interposition of the Court. Motion denied, with seven dollars costs to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cousland v. DavisThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859
- Royal Insurance v. NobleNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1868
- Swift v. WylieThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867