From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burbanks Hardware Co. v. Hinkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1902
76 App. Div. 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1902)

Opinion

November Term, 1902.

W.F. Hickey, for the appellant.

Warren McConihe, for the respondent.


The judgment of the County Court, reversing the judgment of the Justice Court, must be affirmed. The record shows that after defendant had withdrawn from the case, and in his absence, the trial of the case was on the application of the plaintiff three times adjourned, and on the third adjourned day the trial proceeded in the absence of defendant. Such unauthorized adjournments ousted the justice of his jurisdiction. ( Crisp v. Rice, 83 Hun, 465; Morris v. Hays, 14 App. Div. 8.)

On the return day of the summons defendant offered to prove that the summons and other papers were not served upon him, and that the constable's return in that respect is incorrect. The offer was by the justice refused, no objection being made to the form of the offer or the character of proof offered. This must be deemed a decision by the justice of the peace that proof could not be entertained to impeach the constable's return. This was also a reversible error.

Judgment of the County Court affirmed, with costs.

All concurred; CHASE, J., on ground last stated.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Burbanks Hardware Co. v. Hinkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1902
76 App. Div. 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1902)
Case details for

Burbanks Hardware Co. v. Hinkel

Case Details

Full title:THE BURBANKS HARDWARE COMPANY, Appellant, v . JOHN HINKEL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1902

Citations

76 App. Div. 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1902)
78 N.Y.S. 365

Citing Cases

People ex Rel. Ballin v. Smith

This being so it would have been the proper, natural and adequate course for relator, upon the return day, to…

Blowers v. Malone

A delay of six hours is not a mere "reasonable indulgence," as referred to in the Hardenburgh case, supra,…