TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lederer v. Adams

Lederer v. Adams, 11 N.Y.S. 481 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
October 24, 1890
Judges
Brady
Citations
11 N.Y.S. 48133 N.Y. St. Rep. 7991890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2181
Headnotes
Wbits—Service—Privilege of Witness. A motion to set aside service of a summons, on the ground that such service was-made on defendant while in attendance as witness in a legislative investigation, will not be denied for loches where it is made before the time to appear and answer the summons has expired. Thorp v. Adams, ante, 479, followed.
Summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Motion to set aside the service of the summons in this action, brought by Samuel M. Lederer against Thomas D. Adams, on the ground that the summons was served on defendant while attending as witness before a committee of the senate. .From an order setting the service aside plaintiff appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Brady

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

Brady, J.

The only difference between this case and that of Thorp v. Adams, ante, 479, decided herewith, is that the defendant was served intermediate the day of his arrival and his examination, which occurred on the 19th of May last; and the point presented is that the motion should have been denied upon the ground of the loches of the defendant in making the motion. The summons was served on the 16th of May last, and the order to show cause was not granted until the 5th of June, the affidavit on which it was founded not being verified until the 3d of June. There is no such force in this point as to require a reversal of the order. The motion could properly be made at any time before the time to answer had expired, and the defendant was not, under the circumstances, called upon to exercise any extraordinary vigilance. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1906: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Morrow v. Dudley144 F. 441 (M.D. Penn. 1906)

Most recent

  1. Morrow v. Dudley144 F. 441 (M.D. Penn. 1906)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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