History
  • No items yet
midpage
Corning & Norton v. Pray
2 Wend. 626
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1829
Check Treatment
By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.

The service was irregular. If the notice could not be personally served on the agent or on his clerk in his office, it should have been delivered to some one of his family. The motion is granted.*

In another case, decided this term, a notice served by leaving the same in the office of agent, no one being therein, was pronounced an irregular service.

Case Details

Case Name: Corning & Norton v. Pray
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 15, 1829
Citation: 2 Wend. 626
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.