Case ID: ny-st-rep_39/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fitzsimons, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis Ahner, Resp’t, v. The New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., App’lt.
    
      (City Court of New York, General lerm,
    
    
      Filed May 8, 1891.)
    
    Summons—When service defective—When objection to be made.
    In an action brought under chap. 185 of the Laws of 1857 to recover a penalty for extortion by a railroad company, an objection that the summons was not served by the sheriff, in accordance with § 1895 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be made before service of the answer.
    Appeal from special term.
    
      Page & Tafft, for app’lt; Henry Wehle, for resp’t.
   Fitzsimons, J.

—This action is brought to recover a penalty amounting to $50.15 under the statute entitled “An act to prevent extortion by railroad companies, passed March 27, 1857,"

„ because of alleged violation of said statute by defendant to plaintiff’s injury in said amount. Section 1895 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, that the summons in actions of this character shall be served (in this instance) by the sheriff, who shall file proof of service theieof with the clerk of this court. *

The answer of the defendant, among other things, alleges “ That this action cannot be maintained, for the reason that the summons was not served by the person designated in said § 1895, and without prejudice, by appearing to defend, reserves said objection, and with right insists upon the same whenever deemed proper.”

If the summons was served by a person not designated by said section of the Code, then said service was merely irregular,- and objection should have been by motion before service of the answer. It is a trivial objection, at most,' and such objections are not encouraged and ought always to be disregarded and set aside unless taken in the proper time, viz., by motion and before answer.

This court has jurisdiction of the parties, the subject matter of the action, and the complaint appears to state a good cause of action. ■ The order appealed from is a proper' one and is affirmed, with costs.

Ehrlich, Ch. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.