Dix v. Palmer & Schoolcraft
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Gridley, Justice.
First. One irregularity relied on, to show that the judgment is irregular, consists of a defect in the summons. It mentions no court from which it emanates. In using a summons of this description, the plaintiff’s attorney followed the form prepared by the commissioners on practice and appended to their report of the Code of 1848. But, notwithstanding it claims so high a paternity, it has been repeatedly pronounced, radically defective. In a considerable class of cases the Supreme Court and County Court have concurrent jurisdiction, and a summons should certainly inform -a…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Heinrich v. EnglundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Richardson v. RogersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz & SonsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Levy v. GoldbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Tamburo v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.