Berlin v. Hall
New York Supreme Court
THIS is an action upon a note which became outlawed June 15th, 1863. The defendant Blashfield was served with process December 29 th, 1863. He suffered default, and on the footing of the judgment entered against him, the defendant Hall was served with a summons to show cause why he should not be bound by the judgment, under the provisions of the Code relating to proceedings against joint debtors.
Read the full summary
THIS is an action upon a note which became outlawed June 15th, 1863. The defendant Blashfield was served with process December 29 th, 1863. He suffered default, and on the footing of the judgment entered against him, the defendant Hall was served with a summons to show cause why he should not be bound by the judgment, under the provisions of the Code relating to proceedings against joint debtors. (See §§ 375-381.) There was no pretense on the part of the plaintiff, that at the time of serving Blashfield, there was any difficulty in finding Hall, or that he was not in the state, and just as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Leonard, P. J.
This is a proceeding under section ’375 of the Code, for the purpose of having the defendant Hall adjudged to be bound by a prior judgment entered in the action, after service of process upon his former partner only, who allowed judgment to be entered for want of an answer. Apparently, the statute of limitations had run against the demand before the service of process upon the partner.
The defendant Hall insists upon the statute as a bar to this proceeding.
Section 379; of the Code, by its literal reading, precludes the defense of the statute of limitations where it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Keuren v. . ParmeleeNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gibson v. Van DerzeeNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Gibson v. Van DerzeeNew York Supreme Court · 1873