U.S. Supreme Court WUCHTER v. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13 (1928)

[Page 276 U.S. 13, 28]

ant. Notice was in fact given. And it was admitted at the bar that the defendant had, at all times, actual knowledge and the opportunity to defend. The cases cited by the court as holding that he could deliberately disregard that notice and opportunity and yet insist upon a defect in the statute as drawn, although he was in no way prejudiced thereby, seem hardly reconcilable with a long line of authorities. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230, 238, 239 S., 20 S. Ct. 620; Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 436, 437 S., 21 S. Ct. 836; Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 227, 228 S., 25 S. Ct. 625, 3 Ann. Cas. 1084; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hostetter, , 36 S. Ct. 475; Aikins v. Kingsbury, 247 U.S. 484, 489, 38 S. Ct. 558. For the reasons stated, I do not need to attempt to reconcile them.

Mr. Justice STONE, dissenting.

I agree that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded, but with leave to the state court to determine whether the notice given to the plaintiff in error by the secretary of state was required by the statute.