From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wurlitzer Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court, Ontario Trial Term
Oct 8, 1924
123 Misc. 777 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)

Opinion

October 8, 1924.

William S. Moore, for the plaintiff.

Lapham, McGreevy Ryan ( James M. Ryan, of counsel), for the defendant.


This action is brought to recover possession of a chattel sold to the defendant upon a conditional contract of sale. The purchase price was $1,600, $45 remaining unpaid thereon.

The summons and complaint were served upon the defendant in a cell in the Geneva police station where he had been taken because of his violent insanity, although he had never been judicially declared to be incompetent. He died the next day in the Willard State Hospital. The plaintiff now seeks to continue this action against the administrator of the estate of the deceased defendant.

The court has power to require the summons to be served upon a designated person when it has reason to believe that the defendant is "mentally incapable," although he has not been judicially declared to be so. Civ. Pr. Act, § 226.

The person so designated shall represent the incompetent and protect his interests. American Mortgage Co. v. Dewey, 106 A.D. 389.

It cannot be believed that it was the intention of the legislature, when enacting the Civil Practice Act, to permit an action to be commenced against an incompetent merely by leaving a summons with him. The decedent did not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the meaning or effect of the papers left with him or to take steps to settle or defend the action. Certainly, under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the court to require the summons to be served upon some other person before the service became complete and jurisdiction of the defendant acquired.

The proper practice in such cases is to apply to the court for an order designating some person upon whom the summons shall be served. Without such an order and compliance therewith, and without also delivering the summons to the defendant personally, the service of the summons is not complete. O'Brien v. O'Brien, 38 N.Y.S. 157; American Mortgage Co. v. Dewey, supra; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 188 A.D. 276.

The motion is denied, the service of the summons is set aside and the requisition to replevy is vacated, with ten dollars costs.

Ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

Wurlitzer Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court, Ontario Trial Term
Oct 8, 1924
123 Misc. 777 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)
Case details for

Wurlitzer Co. v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE RUDOLPH WURLITZER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v . WALDO J. WILLIAMS, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Ontario Trial Term

Date published: Oct 8, 1924

Citations

123 Misc. 777 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)
206 N.Y.S. 145

Citing Cases

Barone v. Cox

This duty is not limited to cases only in which a committee has been appointed, but it extends to all cases…