Cunningham v. Goelet

Decided January 15, 1847

New York Supreme Court · decided 1847-01-15

Summary proceedings to recover possession of demised premises. On the 2d of May, 1846, an affidavit was made before one of the aldermen of the city of New-York, as follows: “ City and county of New-York, ss.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1891

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1847-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Bronson, Ch. J.

¶1Although Henry in his affidavit describes himself as agent for Goelet, he does not swear that he was such agent. (Ex parte Bank of Monroe, 7 Hill, 177. Ex parte Aldrich, 1 Denio, 662.) The summons was also defective. It was not directed to any body, and Cunningham was no where named in it. (See Hill v. Stocking, 6 Hill, 314.) It is said that Cunningham waived all objections to the affidavit and summons by appearing. He did not appear for any other purpose than that of objecting to the sufficiency of the proceedings; and it would be strange indeed if that could be construed into a waiver of the very objections which he took

¶2Proceedings reversed.