Case Name: Ward v. Gillies
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-08-05
Citations: 11 N.Y.S. 797
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ward v. Gillies.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 11
Pages: 797–797

Head Matter:
Ward v. Gillies.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
August 5, 1890.)
Pleading—Amendment—Time—Service by Mail.
Code Civil Proc. N. T. § 798, which provides that where “a paper must be served ■ within a specified time, * * * if service is made through the post-office, the time so required or allowed is double the time specified, ” does not double the time for serving an amended answer, where the service is by mail.
At chambers. Action by Martin J. Ward against Joseph Gillies to recover broker’s commission-. The complaint was served by mail on March 2, 1890, and the answer thereto was duly served by mail on May 2, 1890. Thirty-five days after the service of the answer, (June 6, 1890,') defendant served an amended answer by mail. The amended answer was returned on the ground that service thereof was not had within the proper time. After service of the answer, and before service of the amended answer, plaintiff noticed the cause for trial, and put it on the calendar. After the amended answer was returned, plaintiff tobk an inquest, and defendant now moves to set aside the judgment entered in pursuance of such inquest. Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 798, is as follows: “Where it is prescribed in this act, or in the general rules of practice, that a notice must be given, or a paper must be served, within a specified time, before an act is to be done, or that the adverse party has a specified time, after notice or service, within which to do an act, if service is made through the post-office, the time so required or so allowed is double the time specified, except that the service of notice of trial may be made, through the post-office, not less than sixteen days before the day of trial, including the day of service.”
■Wilder, Wilder <6 Lynch, (William J. Lynch, of counsel,) for plaintiff. Hakes, Page & Acker, (Ira C. Parren, of counsel,) for defendant.

Opinion:
Beach, J.
Motion is denied, under Code Civil Proc. § 798, as now worded, and Toomey v. Andrews, 48 How. Pr. 332, with $10 costs.