Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 How. Pr. 476

Perkins v. Mead

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1857

New York Supreme Court · decided 1857-04-15

<p>A motion to set aside a summons for irregularity will tie denied with costs* where the notice of motion does nob specify the grounds of the motion* or in what the irregularity consists.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1906

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Welles, Justice.

¶1The motion is to set aside the summons for irregularity, without indicating in any manner in the notice, in what the alleged irregularity consists. After reading the moving papers, I was at a loss to conjecture the irregularity complained of, until I examined the points and brief of the moving counsel.

¶2. The plaintiff’s counsel in his points takes this objection, and insists that rule 25 be applied, which was intended for precisely such a case. There is no good reason why the rule should not be enforced. If the merits were involved in the least in the motion, it would be denied without prejudice. But they are not, and the motion is denied generally for the reason that the irregularity alleged is not specified in the notice, with $7 costs.

/22/howpr/476 · .json · Public domain