TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Martin v. Smith

John F. Martin v. John Smith

Martin v. Smith, 37 Misc. 425 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
March 15, 1902
Judges
Gildebsleeve
Citations
37 Misc. 42575 N.Y.S. 780
Headnotes
Attachment — Necessity for serving the summons within thirty days. Code C. P. § 638. An attachment must be vacated where service of the summons, made without the State of New York within thirty days after the granting of the attachment, has been set aside by an order and an appeal has been taken therefrom and no stay has been granted and no other service of the summons has been made or begun within said thirty days.
Summary
Motion to vacate an attachment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gildebsleeve

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gildebsleeve, J.

The motion is to vacate an attachment. The Code requires the summons to be served within thirty days after the issuing of the attachment, either personally within the State or “ else, before the expiration of the same time, service of the summons by publication must be commenced, or service thereof *426 must be made without the State pursuant to an order obtained therefor,” §. 638. In the case at bar the summons was served without the State, pursuant to an order of this court, within the thirty days. Subsequently, this order was vacated, and the service set aside. From this order plaintiff has appealed and the appeal is now pending before the Appellate Division. Since the said service was so set aside the thirty days have expired, without any other service of the summons. No stay of any sort pending the appeal from the order setting aside the service of the summons appears to have been granted, and, as matters now stand, there has been no valid service of the summons in this, action, while, as we have seen, more than thirty days have elapsed since the granting of the attachment. Defendant now moves to set aside the attachment on that ground. It is well settled that a failure to comply with the above quoted provisions of section 638 of the Code is fatal to the attachment. See Blossom v. Estes, 84 N. Y. 614 ; Kieley v. Manufacturing Co., 141 id. 622 . This motion must, therefore, be granted, but, under the circumstances, without costs.

Motion granted, without costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11922: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCoy v. Erie Forge & Steel Co.118 Misc. 851 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1922)
  2. Martin v. Smith76 N.Y.S. 1020 (1902)

Most recent

  1. McCoy v. Erie Forge & Steel Co.118 Misc. 851 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1922)
  2. Martin v. Smith76 N.Y.S. 1020 (1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Blossom v. Estes, 84 N.Y. 614 (1881) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list