Commission Co. v. Russ
New York Supreme Court
The capias ad respondendum was issued returnable the first Monday of August last, on which Russ alone was retarned taketi.
Read the full summary
The capias ad respondendum was issued returnable the first Monday of August last, on which Russ alone was retarned taketi. On declaring in assumpsit, the defendants, after the plaintiff had received special bail, pleaded in abatement the nonjoinder of one Blake: The statute of limitations having nearly elapsed, the plaintiff filed- an . . ..... , f , ' r . . . " . original bill against all the defendants named m the capias,' now moved that all proceedings subsequent to the return and filing of the capias be set aside; and that the plaintiffs be permitted to issue an alias capias against…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
We are aware of no such practice as the "plaintiff urges in this case. Where there is a nonjoinder in the process to bring in the defendants, Which is pleaded in abatement, we know of no remedy "for the defect by amendment. Ho case has, we believe, gone so far as to sanction an "amendment, even to save the plaintiff from the statute 'of limitations. Blake is not "a party before the court. He has no notice; and is no more bound to regard a notice "than he wóuld be if no capias had ever "issued against "any *123body. The amendment may effect his rights materially. Indeed the avowed object is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Heffern v. HuntAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Willink & Willink v. Renwick & RenwickNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Pitkin v. RobySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
- Sanchez de Agreda v. FaulbergNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1854