Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 N.Y. 256

White v. . Bogart

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 9, 1878

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1878-04-09

The plaintiff herein, James P. Gould, Micale White, Calvin H. Bell and William Youmans, each filed notices of claim to the surplus, all the claims being founded upon judgments against the mortgagor. The judgments in favor of plaintiff, James P. Gould and Micale White, were prior in date to the others, and were held to be the prior liens, and entitled to the surplus. The judgment-rolls in the cases of the successful claimants were similar in form.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-04-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1952

13 state decisions

80187818801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Allen, J.

¶1 None of the objections to the judgments of White and others go to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter of the actions or the persons of the defendants. All the defects in the proceedings, and in the judgments alleged, are mere irregularities not affecting the jurisdiction, questions of practice, and all, if not cured by the statute, might have been supplied by the order of the court, and the judgments made regular in form. For the irregularity complained of, the judgments cannot be attacked collaterally. The due and regular service of the summons and complaint, in each case, was admitted by the defendants, and their signatures were proved by the oath of competent witnesses, unless it be said that the plaintiff who proved the admission of service in one of the actions was incompetent. The statute, while it declares that the summons shall be served by some person other than the plaintiff, does not, in terms, make him incompetent to prove the admission of service. (Code, §§ 133, 138.) Service of the summons gave jurisdiction, and any defect in the proof would be supplied or might be waived by the defendants. The admissions do not state the place of service, and to this extent were technically defective. But there was an appearance by the defendants in person in the several actions, which was equivalent to a personal service of a summons, and gave the court jurisdiction of the persons, without the service of a summons and complaint. (Code, § 139.) The consent that judgments be entered was the equivalent of an offer of judgment under. section 385 of the Code; and, although there was no formal acceptance of the offers, they were accepted, in fact, by the entry of the judgments, and the want of a formal acceptance in writing, to be filed with and make a part of the record, was an irregularity merely, not affecting the validity of the judgments, and it may be filed at any time, *260 nunc pro tunc, by leave of the court, or may be waived by the party.

¶2 The order must be affirmed.

¶3 All concur, except Miller, J., absent.

¶4 Order affirmed.

/73/ny/256 · .json · Public domain