Phalen v. Dingee
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal hy the defendants, from the Sixth District Court, where the plaintiff declared for the use and occupation of certain premises. The answer was a general denial. On the trial, the plaintiff put in evidence a landlord and tenant’s agreement, with an ordinary contract of suretyship, contained on the same piece of paper, executed, the former hy one defendant and the latter hy the-other. The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal hy the defendants, from the Sixth District Court, where the plaintiff declared for the use and occupation of certain premises. The answer was a general denial. On the trial, the plaintiff put in evidence a landlord and tenant’s agreement, with an ordinary contract of suretyship, contained on the same piece of paper, executed, the former hy one defendant and the latter hy the-other. The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed. cited Hall v. Farmer, 2 Comst. 553; Code, § 167; 1 Code R. 343; De Ridder v. Schermerhorn, 10 Barb. S. C. R. 638, overruling Enos v.…
1Opinion of the Court
*380By the Court.
Daly, J.
A recovery could not be had against the defendants jointly. The Code, § 120, authorizes persons severally liable upon the same obligation or instrument, including parties to bills of exchange and promissory notes, to be included in the same action, and by § 167, permits several causes of action to be joined, when they arise out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action, and affect all the parties to the action. The defendants were not severally liable upon the same instrument, but upon instruments distinct and different. The one…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- De Ridder v. SchermerhornNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Le Roy v. ShawThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853