Close v. Van Husen
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion in behalf of Van Husen, who had appeared, to dismiss the complaint, for unreasonable neglect on the part of the plaintiff to serve the summons on the other defendants; and was made under section 274 of the Code.
Read the full summary
This was a motion in behalf of Van Husen, who had appeared, to dismiss the complaint, for unreasonable neglect on the part of the plaintiff to serve the summons on the other defendants; and was made under section 274 of the Code. From the motion papers on both sides it appears that the action was commenced prior to September 1848, and was an action, in the nature of a bill in equity by the plaintiff as assignee of a decree against the defendant Van Husen as trustee and executor of Hugh McMartin, deceased, for an accounting, the other defendants being heirs at law of the said McMartin, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Willard Justice.
This case does not fall within any of the provisions of the 135th section of the Code, nor of the Revised Statutes (2 R. S. 186, § 122). Some of the embarrassments in *158cases where the residence of a defendant could not he found, occurred in Jermain vs. Langdon (8 Paige, 41); and in Evarts vs. Becker (8 id. 506); and it is probable that these and similar cases led to the passing of the act of April 12, .1842, p. 363, entitled “ an act in relation to proceedings in the Court of Chancery, against absent, concealed or non resident defendants, unknown owners in partition, and to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jermain v. LangdonNew York Court of Chancery · 1839