Montgomery v. Hasbrouck
New York Supreme Court
A CAPIAS AD RESPONDENDUM was issued, at , the suit of the plaintiff, against James Hasbrouck, Conrad Elmendorf, P)aniel Lewis, and seven others, to answer in a plea of trespass, returnable at the last May term.
Read the full summary
A CAPIAS AD RESPONDENDUM was issued, at , the suit of the plaintiff, against James Hasbrouck, Conrad Elmendorf, P)aniel Lewis, and seven others, to answer in a plea of trespass, returnable at the last May term. The writ contained no ac etiam clause, and all the defendants, except Lewis, having been taken, their appearance was in-r ° r dorsed on the writ, as is usual, where defendants are not held to bail, A declaration was filed against all the defendants, who Had thus indorsed their appearance, except Conrad E. ■ Elmendorf; and a default and interlocutory judgment, was afterwards duly…
1Per curiam
Where the process is not bailable, or the cause of action is not specified in the writ, the plaintiff may join any number of defendants in the writ, and declare against them severally. There can be no inconvenience in this practice. If either of the defendants is not declared against, and he wishes to get rid of the action, he must proceed by obtaining a rule against the plaintiff to declare against him, or be nonsuited.
Rule refused.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Levy v. CadetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Knickerbacker v. ColverNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Morse v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
- White v. Union InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1819