Seagrist v. Crabtree
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP NEW MEXICO. Motion to dismiss “ because the citation was not served in time.” The citation in this case was made returnable on the second Monday in October, 1885. Service was had on the attorneys for Crabtree on September 16, 1885. The time intervening between the date of service and the return of the citation was less than thirty days, and the notice to the defendant in error, Crabtree, was not sufficient.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP NEW MEXICO. Motion to dismiss “ because the citation was not served in time.” The citation in this case was made returnable on the second Monday in October, 1885. Service was had on the attorneys for Crabtree on September 16, 1885. The time intervening between the date of service and the return of the citation was less than thirty days, and the notice to the defendant in error, Crabtree, was not sufficient. Rev. Stat. § 999. The facts stated in the motion show that plaintiffs in error have fully complied with the fifth section of the eighth rule…
1Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Millee: This is a motion to dismiss, the ground for which is that the citation was served and made returnable less than thirty days after the writ was granted. Ve do not think .that is a sufficient ground to dismiss the writ of error, whatever may be the ground for relief.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Andrews v. ThumCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Nome & Sinook Co. v. Ames Mercantile Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1911