Legal Opinion

Stoutenburgh v. Vandenburgh & Stoutenburgh

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1852PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Priority of liens. The defendants Vandenburgh and Stoutenburgh were partners in trade, doing business at Coxsackie. Shortly before the 11th of November 1851, Vandenburgh absconded. On the day last mentioned, Stoutenburgh confessed a judgment in favor of Walton S. Stoutenburgh, pursuant to the 382d section of the Code, for $630'05. Judgment was entered in form against both partners. On the same day an execution was issued and levied upon the partnership property.

Read the full summary

Priority of liens. The defendants Vandenburgh and Stoutenburgh were partners in trade, doing business at Coxsackie. Shortly before the 11th of November 1851, Vandenburgh absconded. On the day last mentioned, Stoutenburgh confessed a judgment in favor of Walton S. Stoutenburgh, pursuant to the 382d section of the Code, for $630'05. Judgment was entered in form against both partners. On the same day an execution was issued and levied upon the partnership property. On the 13th of November, Journeay & Clark, holding a debt of $1080 against the partnership, procured an attachment against…

1Opinion of the Court

Harris, Justice.

At common law, a plaintiff could only proceed against a joint debtor, not served with process, by outlawry. The authority to enter judgment against any person not so served, is derived from statute. It is provided by the 136th section of the Code, that when an action is brought against several persons jointly indebted upon contract, the plaintiff, if the summons has been served on one or more, but not on all, may enter judgment against all the defendants, and enforce it against their joint property. The same provision is found in the Revised Statutes (2 R. S. 377). But this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crane v. FrenchNew York Supreme Court · 1828
  2. Grazebrook v. M'CreedieNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  3. Clute v. CluteNew York Supreme Court · 1847
  4. Walters & Farley v. Sykes & HarmanNew York Supreme Court · 1840

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bagley v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Abels v. WesterveltNew York Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Shenson v. I. Shainin & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  4. Smith v. OrserNew York Supreme Court · 1864
  5. Barry v. FisherNew York Supreme Court · 1870

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API