Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 N.J.L. 94

Anonymous

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided September 15, 1829

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1829-09-15

<p>Proof of putting a letter, containing a notice, into the post-office, directed to the opposite attorney, is not sufficient proof of the service of such notice, to found an application made in the absence of such attorney.</p>

Decided 1829-09-15

The Court

¶1asked if there was any case in which the putting a letter into the post-office liad been held a sufficient proof of the service of a notice, where the opposite attorney did not appear. In the case of McCoury v. Suydam, 5 Halst. 245, the defendant’s attorney was in court. If the plaintiff’s attorney was now here, and did not deny the receipt of the notice, proof of putting the notice into the post-office would be prima fade evidence of his having received it.

¶2Scudder said that he knewof no. case in this court, in which it had been decided that putting a letter in the post-office was a sufficient proof of notice; and he would, therefore, waive his present motion, and apply for a rule to shew cause.

/11/njl/94 · .json · Public domain