From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newcombe v. Cohn

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jan 1, 1901
33 Misc. 602 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)

Opinion

January, 1901.

J.S. H.A. Wise, for appellants.

Booth Deane, for respondent.


It is clear that the defendant Cohn was a nonresident of this State when he was served with the summons. Section 1298 of the New York City Consolidation Act (L. 1882, ch. 410) requires that when the defendant or either of several defendants in a Municipal Court is not a resident of the city, the summons must be returnable in not less than two nor more than four days from its date. The summons in this case did not comply with this requirement, being returnable ten days after its date. Under such a summons the Municipal Court never acquired jurisdiction to award any judgment against the defendants. Williams v. Wheeler, 8 Abb. Pr. 116; Allison v. Snider Preserve Co., 20 Misc. 367.

The judgment appealed from must be reversed, with costs.

Present: TRUAX, P.J., SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.


Summaries of

Newcombe v. Cohn

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jan 1, 1901
33 Misc. 602 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)
Case details for

Newcombe v. Cohn

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL F. NEWCOMBE, Respondent, v . MARK M. COHN et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Jan 1, 1901

Citations

33 Misc. 602 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)
67 N.Y.S. 930

Citing Cases

Barth v. Owens

The cases cited by the defendant do not affect this principle. Thus, in Newcombe v. Cohn ( 33 Misc. 602) a…