Walker v. Hubbard
New York Supreme Court
—In this case, among other objections taken to plaintiff’s proceedings, it was insisted that the summons was irregular in not stating in what court the action was pending. Ho court whatever was named in the summons. It was answered that the code did not require this, nor were the forms so in our new books of practice. A complaint had also been subsequently served, in which no reference to any court was made, except that the title began “Sup.
Read the full summary
—In this case, among other objections taken to plaintiff’s proceedings, it was insisted that the summons was irregular in not stating in what court the action was pending. Ho court whatever was named in the summons. It was answered that the code did not require this, nor were the forms so in our new books of practice. A complaint had also been subsequently served, in which no reference to any court was made, except that the title began “Sup. Court,” &c. ' R. W. Peckham, for the motion to set aside the proceedings.
1Opinion of the Court
Hand, Justice.
We have two courts with concurrent jurisdiction of certain matters, as foreclosure of mortgages, partition, &c. (§ 30.) The *155proceedings in foreclosure are commenced by summons and may be so in partition. (§§ 129, 130, 448.) And also in some other proceedings under § 30. It seems reasonable, as well as analogous to all former practice, that the defendant should know in what court he is sued. The statute plainly implies this where the action is not a contract for the recovery of money only, for then the summons must state that “ the plaintiff will apply to the court for the relief…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Travis v. Tobias, McGregor & ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Williamson v. Surenko Realties, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1962
- Clement v. FerenbackNew York Marine Court · 1877