Legal Opinion

Bannerman v. Quackenbush

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided June 15, 1885Published

1Opinion of the CourtDaly, C. J.

The court had jurisdiction to allow the words “and son ” to be stricken from the title and to direct that the name of Abraham Quackenbush be inserted. The action was brought against the defendants as copartners; and where that is the case the Code provides (sec. 1932) that if the summons is served upon one or more, but not on all the defendants, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendant or defendants served, unless the court shall otherwise direct, and if he recovers make the final judgment against all the defendants jointly indebted, upon which judgment the execution issues in form…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gaines v. HennenSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
  2. Bliss v. BlissThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860
  3. Downer v. EgglestonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835

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

Powered by the Exa API