Nesmeth v. Halsted
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the chancellor, upon an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, appointing a receiver, upon a creditor’s bill. The complainant’s solicitor neglected to serve a copy of the 191st rule, upon the defendant, at the time of the service of the subpoena.
Read the full summary
This case came before the chancellor, upon an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, appointing a receiver, upon a creditor’s bill. The complainant’s solicitor neglected to serve a copy of the 191st rule, upon the defendant, at the time of the service of the subpoena. The defendant having appeared by a solicitor,- a copy of the rule was subsequently ■ served on such solicitor, and within twenty days thereafter the complainants gave notice of an application for the appointment of a receiver. Upon the hearing of that application, the counsel • for the .defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It was undoubtedly irregular to serve the subpoena, upon the defendant, without at the same time serving a copy of the 191st rule of the court. And if the defendant had applied to the court the first opportunity, after the time allowed for his appearance, to set aside the service of the sub-' poena and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity, his application should have been granted, with costs. The object of that part of the rule which requires a copy thereof to be served with the subpoena, was to apprize the defendant of his rights.- and duties; and also to save him the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mobile Marine Dock & Mutual Ins. v. McMillan & SonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Kilpatrick v. GravesMississippi Supreme Court · 1875