¶1In the case of Bennet adsm. Vielie, July term, 1802, it was decided, that the party must be warned or he is not bound to take notice of the proceedings, and in Harvey adsm. Hildrith, January term, 1803, we ruled that the defendant must have personal notice, or such as the court would deem tantamount. Our statute, like that of Hen. 4, requires a warning, and the personal service here, was a sufficient one, without any rule of court. The defendant was grossly in default, as nine months elapsed before the plaintiff went on. We think SO days a sufficient and reasonable notice in these cases. You can therefore take nothing by your motion.
3 Cai. Cas. 150
Given v. Driggs
Decided August 15, 1805
New York Supreme Court · decided 1805-08-15
AFTER a new trial had been ordered in this cause,* the plaintiff, on the 30th of June 1804, personally served defendant with a written notice of it, requiring him to appoint anew attorney, as his former one had been promote to the Bench, and that in default of so doing, all subsequent notices would be served by affixing the same in the the clerk of the court.
Decided 1805-08-15