Case Name: JOHN L. JEROME, Respondent, v. WILBUR W. FLAGG, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05
Citations: 55 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 351
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN L. JEROME, Respondent, v. WILBUR W. FLAGG, Appellant.
Judges: Barnard, P. J., concurred; Dykman, J., not sitting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 55
Pages: 351–351

Head Matter:
JOHN L. JEROME, Respondent, v. WILBUR W. FLAGG, Appellant.
•Orderfor the publication of a summons — when a statement in an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attm'ney, “that said, defendant cannot with due diligence be served personally within the Stale,” will be regarded as a statement of fact tending to show that due diligence has been used.
Appeal from an order made at the "Westchester Special Term ■denying a motion to vacate an order for the service, of a summons by publication, based upon the ground that the affidavit was insufficient.
The court at General Term said: “ The proof was clear and con•clusive that the defendant was a resident of Denver, and absolutely located there, and hence no amount of diligence would avail to effect a personal service in this State. The case of Hemiedy v. The New Fork Insu/rcmee and Trust Gom/pcmy (101 N. Y., 18Y) is decisive of the question raised here. The expression in the affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney ‘ that said defendant cannot with due diligence he served personally within the State,’ must he regarded not solely as a conclusion of law, but as a statement of fact tending to show that due diligence had been used. Such was the construction put upon a like statement in the Henned/y Gctse {su/pra).
“ There is no other point that requires discussion. The order must be affirmed, with costs.”
George P. Gordel, for the appellant.
James T. Scmders, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Pratt, J.
Barnard, P. J., concurred; Dykman, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.