Case ID: hill_4/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bronson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anonymous.
    An affidavit of service of papers on a deputy of one of the clerks of this court, in the clerk’s office, is good, without adding that the clerk was absent.
    So, of an affidavit stating service on a clerk of one of the clerks of the court, in his office. Note (a).
    
    
      M. T. Reynolds moved,
    in this case, upon papers which were sworn to have been served on a deputy of one of the clerks of the supreme court (naming the deputy and clerk) in the clerk’s office; whereupon
    
      Jl. Sheldon, contra,
    objected that the proof of service was insufficient, it not appearing that the clerk was absent. But
   Bronson, J.

held the proof sufficient.

Motion granted. 
      
       In another case, decided at this term, the affidavit stated that the papers Were served on a clerk of J. K. P., one of the clerks of the supreme court, in his office: Held sufficient.