United States v. Riley
District Court, S.D. New York
These were actions brought by the United States against William H. Riley to enforce a forfeiture of the value of various alleged fraudulent importations of merchandise at the port of New York, and motions were made to set aside the summons in each case.
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, District Judge.
A motion has been made in defendant’s behalf in each of the above three causes to set aside the service of the summons, on the ground that the copy of the summons served upon the defendant, had no indorsement upon it indicating the statute or section upon which the claim for forfeiture was based, as required by sections 1897,1962 and 1963 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure. The summonses without any complaint were personally served upon the defendant on January 5, February 7 and April 5, 1894, respectively. These summonses did not state the nature of the cause of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Schreiber v. SharplessSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- United States v. ClaflinSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Stockwell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Brooks v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1872
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. RileyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1899
- United States v. WittemannCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998