General
Jackson, ex dem. Counter, v. Isaiah Giles
1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 442·New York Supreme Court·1805·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Jackson, ex dem. Counter, v. Isaiah Giles.
ON reading the affidavit of service, it stated the notice to have been delivered to the clerk of the attorney, without saying where.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The service is on the face of it insufficient. We do not investigate the merits of any application, which the other side does not oppose ; because We construe silence into consent, and an acknowledgment that the law is with the person moving. But we require the notice and affidavit of service to be read, because they are to conform to our own rules, all of which are known to the court. This reasoning, however, does not apply to transactions between the parties to a suit. The motion must, therefore, be denied though there is no opposition.