Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 F. 23

Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss

New York Southern District Court

Decided March 8, 1880.)

New York Southern District Court · decided 1880-03-08

<p>Demurrer — Notice of Hearing.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1886

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-03-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Demurrer — Notice of Hearing.

¶2Koones dc Goldman, for defendants.

¶3Fiero & Chittenden, for plaintiff.

¶4Choate, D. J.

¶5This cause, which is a common-law action, being at issue on complaint and demurrer thereto, the plaintiff gave less than 14 days’ notice of hearing for a stated term of the court. The defendant objects that under Bevised Statutes, § 914, the same notice must be given as is required *24under the New York Code for the trial of an issue of law which the hearing upon a demurrer is.

¶6By that code 14 days’ notice must be given. I think this is a matter of “practice” within the meaning of section 914 of the Revised Statutes, and I see no difficulty in its being adapted to the trial of causes in the federal courts. Therefore, it must be deemed applicable, and, so far as the rules of this court allowed a shorter notice, they are abrogated by the statute. Case stricken from the calendar.

/2/f1d/23 · .json · Public domain