Legal Opinion
Douglas v. Haberstro
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 15, 1879PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Motion to set aside judgment for irregularity, on the ground that defendant had no notice of the application therefor.
1Opinion of the CourtDaniels, J.
The act of subscribing himself as attorney for the defendant, to the notice of motion, served for the exoneration of the sheriff, from liability as bail, was probably *277sufficient to constitute an appearance, for the purpose of waiving mere irregularities (Baxter agt. Arnold, 9 How., 445; Kelsey agt. Davis, 15 id., 92; Ayers agt. Western Ins. Co., 48 Barb., 132). But while it may very well have been attended with that result, it was still insufficient to entitle the attorney to notice of other and entirely different proceedings in the action. To require the service of notice of such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doe Ex Dem. Barbarie v. EslavaSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Ayres v. Western RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by2 opinions
- Couch v. MulhaneThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882
- Springfield Metallic Casket Co. v. WielarCity of New York Municipal Court · 1899