Case Name: Anonymous
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1829-09
Citations: 11 N.J.L. 94
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Anonymous. [*94
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
* Anonymous. [*94
Proof of putting a letter, containing a notice, into the post-office, directed to the opposite attorney, is not sufficient proof of the service of such notice, to found an application made in the absence of such attorney.
Seudder
moved to change the venue from Bergen to Essex; and in support of the motion offered to read an affidavit taken in the absence of the plaintiff’s attorney, upon notice. To prove the notice, he read an affidavit stating that a notice of taking depositions on the 31st, was put into the post-office at Elizabethtown, on the 24th day of August, directed to the plaintiff’s attorney at Jersey City.

Opinion:
The Court
asked if there was any case in which the putting a letter into the post-office liad been held a sufficient proof of the service of a notice, where the opposite attorney did not appear. In the case of McCoury v. Suydam, 5 Halst. 245, the defendant's attorney was in court. If the plaintiff's attorney was now here, and did not deny the receipt of the notice, proof of putting the notice into the post-office would be prima fade evidence of his having received it.
Scudder said that he knewof no. case in this court, in which it had been decided that putting a letter in the post-office was a sufficient proof of notice; and he would, therefore, waive his present motion, and apply for a rule to shew cause.