Case ID: nj-eq_35/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ira M. Harrison v. Joseph T. Farrington.
    Defendant was residing with his family, in the house of his mother, in this state, for the summer. His own house, in New York city, was open during the summer, and in charge of a servant. He returned to New York with his family in October. — Held, that leaving a copy of a subpoena ad respondendum for him, at his mother’s house, in September, was a good service, it being “ his dwelling-house or usual place of abode.”
    On bill. Motion to set aside service of subpoena ad respondendum. On order to show cause.
    
      Mr. S. C. Mount, for the motion.
    
      Mr. J. W. Taylor, contra.
    
   The Chancellor.

The service of the subpoena ad respondendum appears to have been made by leaving a copy thereof at the dwelling-house in-Caldwell, in Essex county, where the defendant was at the time living for the season with his family. The service appears to have been made on the 10th of September. The defendant testifies that he went with his family from New York city to Caldwell to reside in that house (it was his mother’s, and he owned a farm near by) about the first of June, and stayed till the early part of October. He had lived there in summer for the two previous years. His house in New York was open during the time, and in charge of a servant. The copy of the writ appears, from the testimony, to have reached his hands at the house in Caldwell soon after it was left there. The character of the defendant’s residence there is shown by his answer to the question whether he did not make his home at the house in Caldwell when he went there with his family. His reply was, that if a man can have two homes, he did. The service on him there was a good service. It was at his dwelling-house or usual place of abode. City Bank v. Merrit, 1 Gr. 131; Stout v. Leonard, 8 Vr. 492. Moreover, it appears that the defendant has, since the service, taken a step in the litigation of the cause on the merits. He has given notice of taking testimony de bene esse. The motion is denied, with costs.