New York Supreme Court, 1857

Perkins v. Mead

Perkins v. Mead
New York Supreme Court · Decided April 15, 1857 · Welles
22 How. Pr. 476

Counsel

F. E. Cornwell, for defendants., J. C. Smith, for plaintiff.

Perkins v. Mead

Opinion of the Court

Welles, Justice.

The motion is to set aside the summons for irregularity, without indicating in any manner in the notice, in what the alleged irregularity consists. After reading the moving papers, I was at a loss to conjecture the irregularity complained of, until I examined the points and brief of the moving counsel.

. The plaintiff’s counsel in his points takes this objection, and insists that rule 25 be applied, which was intended for precisely such a case. There is no good reason why the rule should not be enforced. If the merits were involved in the least in the motion, it would be denied without prejudice. But they are not, and the motion is denied generally for the reason that the irregularity alleged is not specified in the notice, with $7 costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.