Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 N.Y. 544

Phinney v. . Broschell

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 6, 1880

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1880-04-06

(Reported below, 19 Hun, 116.) The attachment was issued May 9, 1879, and a levy made upon property of the defendants. An order for the publication of summons was granted June 5, 1879, of the material portions of which the following is a copy : “At a Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held at Chambers at the New County Court House, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of June, A. D. 1879. “ Present—Hon. Abraham R. .Lawrence, Justice.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-04-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1916

14 state decisions

701880189019001910decided

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 →

Rapallo, J.

¶1 The appellants claim that the order of publication in this case was not made by a judge, but by the court at Special Term, and was therefore void. This is the only point in the case.

¶2 It appears that the order was in fact made by Judge Lawrence out of court, in his private chambers. His name appears in the caption, and in the body of the order it purports to be made by a judge. It recites, “ the plaintiffs *547 having presented to me,” etc., and “ having proved to my satisfaction,” etc., ordered, etc. It is signed by the judge with his initials, and his official title is abbreviated. The appellant relies on the fact that it has a caption, “at a Special Term held at chambers,” and that there is a direction to enter, but it does not appear to have been in fact entered as a court order. The General Term held that it was good as a chamber order of the judge. The question is purely one of form and we are not inclined to differ with the court below on such a technical point of practice.

¶3 The order should bo affirmed with costs. ■

¶4 All concur, except Andrews, J., absent.

¶5 Order affirmed.

/80/ny/544 · .json · Public domain