¶1As the cause of action is one which would authorize an execution'against the body, in case of a recovery, the order will not be vacated merely because the cause of action is denied. The opposing affidavits sustain that on which the order was granted. The complaint will not be set aside after an answer put in, merely because the summons was irregular. If the order of arrest is not wholly void, it should not be set aside for such irregularity, on a motion made after answer; if wholly void, the defendant does not need the interposition of the Court. Motion denied, with seven dollars costs to plaintiff, to abide the event See Union Bank v. Mott, 6 Abb. P. R. 315, and the cases cited, in a note to it.
1 Bosw. 634
Bedell v. Sturta
The Superior Court of New York City
Decided December 3, 1857
The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1857-12-03
The defendant moves to vacate an order of arrest, by virtue of which, he is now held in custody. It was granted on the 10th of October, 1857. An amended answer to the complaint was put in, on the 12th of December. The original summons is entitled in the Supreme Court. The copy served is not produced, and how that was entitled does not appear. The notice of motion does not point out this irregularity.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1867
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1857-12-03
View the full empirical analysis of this case →