Case ID: cai_1/html/0319-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Jackson, on the demise of Hogeboom, against Stiles; Griffin, tenant in possession.
    After service of a declaration in ejectment on a tenant, though it may be a totally informal one, it is sufficient to set'him on inquiry, and if a rule to show cause why the plaintiff should not amend be granted, affixing in the clerk’s office is good service on the tenant. If proceedings be commenced for lands to which a title is awarded by the commissioners for settling disputes to lands in Onondaga, within three years after, it is sufficient, though they may be faulty, and require amendment after the three years, to entitle the plaintiff to proceed.
    A title to the premises in question had been awarded by the commissioners appointed to settle disputes to land, in the county of Onondaga, to the lessor of the plaintiff, who had served declarations on the tenants, with the usual notices annexed. The declarations, however, contained blanks for the towns and counties, which, at the time of service, were not filled up, nor were they, in the copies annexed to the affidavits of service and filed with them, on which the usual rule was entered. The declarations were served on the tenants within the three years allowed by law for prosecuting the titles awarded, but they were now elapsed.
    Spencer,
    on these facts, (disclosed by the affidavit of the plaintiff’s lessor, which stated also the services having been made with the full intent of carrying into effect the actions instituted,) moved for a rule against the tenants to show cause, by the first day of next term, why the declaration should not be respectively amended by the insertion of the names of the towns and counties, and that fixing up the rul'e in the clerk’s office should be deemed good service.
    
      Emott.
    
    Are the tenants to take notice of declarations which are mere nullities, void in themselves, and to which they are not parties ? They have not appeared, they are not in court, and John Stiles is the only defendant to the suit that can be known by the record.
   Per Curiam.

Notice having been served on the tenants,

it was not enough to put them on inquiry. There is time enough for them to come in if they please.

Motion granted. 
      
       See ante 21, Jackcon v. Reynolds. 154, n. («) Webb v. Wilkie. Post, 251 Jackson, ex dem. Mnch v. Kough.