Cuyler v. Coats
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought to recover a balance due to the plaintiff from the defendants upon a joint and not several contract. Both the defendants appeared and answered. . The defendant, Israel B. Coats, among other things, set up in his answer the defence of infancy at the- time he entered into the contract.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to recover a balance due to the plaintiff from the defendants upon a joint and not several contract. Both the defendants appeared and answered. . The defendant, Israel B. Coats, among other things, set up in his answer the defence of infancy at the- time he entered into the contract. The action was tried at the Livingston circuit in May, 1854, when the defendant, Israel B. Coats, succeeded in his defence of infancy, and the plaintiff recovered against the other defendant the sum of $139.25 damages. The defendant, Israel B., afterward made out his costs and procured…
1Opinion of the Court
Welles, Justice.
Upon the defence of infancy being interposed by the answer the plaintiff might, if he chose, have discontinued as to the defendant setting it up, without posts, on application to the court for that purpose ; or, he might, as he has done, go to trial and compel the defendant to establish it, by evidence. In the latter case, however, he takes the risk of having to pay the costs of the defence of infancy in case it turns out to be successful.
The question whether in any case, where there are two or more defendants, and the plaintiff recovers and becomes entitled to costs against…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fleischman v. YagelNew York Supreme Court · 1896
- Schildwachter v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Wenzel v. MurphyNew York Marine Court · 1876