Saxton v. Dodge
New York Supreme Court
These four actions—and one other, James A. Saxton and John Be WoTb agt. the same defendants, impleaded with one Eplwañm Ball—were brought in the county of Cayuga, blew York, and commenced by service of summons on each personally, in March, 1867, on the defendants, John A. Dodge of Auburn, bT.
Read the full summary
These four actions—and one other, James A. Saxton and John Be WoTb agt. the same defendants, impleaded with one Eplwañm Ball—were brought in the county of Cayuga, blew York, and commenced by service of summons on each personally, in March, 1867, on the defendants, John A. Dodge of Auburn, bT. Y., John Stevenson of Canada, and Jacob Polhemus of Michigan, who composed the firm of “ Dodge, Stevenson & Co.” These defendants—Dodge, Stevenson and Polhemus—appeared jointly by Rathbun & Sittser, their attorneys, in all five actions, and served their joint answer therein in May, 1867. These answers…
1Opinion of the CourtJames C. Smith, J.
The motion is based on an alleged irregularity in the proceedings on the part of the plaintiff, and is also addressed to the discretion of the court.
The alleged irregularity is the want of due notice of trial. But the notice served on Mr. Sittser, the surviving attorney of the defendants, after the death of his partner, was regular and sufficient. The plaintiff’s proceedings were regular, and, if they were not, the motion to set them aside for irregularity is too late, more than a year having elapsed since the payment was rendered, and the defendants had notice of it.
So far as the motion is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cronin v. O'ReileySuperior Court of Buffalo · 1889
- Harbeck v. PupinNew York Supreme Court · 1889