Case Name: KNUDSEN v. FRIEDERY
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-04-17
Citations: 57 N.Y.S. 581
Docket Number: 
Parties: KNUDSEN v. FRIEDERY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 57
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
(27 Misc. Rep. 98.)
KNUDSEN v. FRIEDERY.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
April 17, 1899.)
Preliminary Injunction—Service of Order.
The service of a preliminary injunction will not be set aside for failure to serve a copy of the undertaking required by the order, if the equities of thé case require its continuance, but the plaintiff will be permitted to cure the irregularity by serving a copy of the undertaking nunc pro tunc.
Suit by Hans A. B. Knudsen against Victor Friedery. Heard on motion for a continuance of a preliminary injunction, and a counter motion to set aside the service of the preliminary injunction order. Preliminary injunction continued, and defendant’s motion to set aside service of the injunction order overruled.
Edwards & Bryan, for plaintiff.
Ignatius Weltner, for defendant.

Opinion:
GIEGERIOH, J.
The plaintiff moves for a continuance of a preliminary injunction, heretofore granted, pending his action for a dissolution of a co-partnership, and the defendant's counter motion is to set aside the service of the preliminary injunction order for failure of service of a copy of the undertaking required by such order, and recited therein. The merits of the case, upon the undisputed facts, are wholly with the plaintiff, and I have no hesitation in granting the motion to continue the injunction. As to the service of the preliminary order; it may be that the failure to serve the undertaking is an irregularity, which, in a proper case, would suffice to cause the court to disapprove the service (1 Rum. Prac. p. 485, and cases cited); but there is no doubt that the irregularity may be cured and the service upheld, even where the undertaking was not in existence at the time of such service (Manley v. Leggett, 62 Hun, 562, 17 N. Y. Supp. 68), and the matter is therefore one to be dealt with in the discretion of the court. Here the plaintiff's good faith is apparent, and the defendant's is certainly not, and no technical point which may properly be avoided should be adopted at the latter's insistence.
Plaintiff's motion granted; order to contain a direction for the service of a copy of the undertaking nunc pro tunc. Defendant's motion denied. Ten dollars cost of one motion to plaintiff. Settle order on notice.