1 Edw. Ch. 631
Decided May 20, 1833
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1833-05-20
Ii~ this case (of foreclosure) the original subp~na had been duly filled up, signed and sealed; but what purported to be a copy, served upon the defendant, -had a blank left for the day and month of the return. No appearance had been put in; and upon an affidavit of due service, the bill was taken pro confesso. - A motion was now made to set the proceedings aside.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1877
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1833-05-20
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1I consider the proceedings The defendant had a right to treat the paper as a nullity. It .is true the original subpoena had the date í but the defendant was to be guided by the copy left with him.
¶2This is a clerical error and the defendant has had the of the delay: I shall not give costs.