Bannerman v. Quackenbush
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from an order of the general term of the city court, affirming an order of the special term upon a motion by the plaintiff for a new taxation of costs. William J. Bannerman sued “ John E. Quackenbush- & Son,” as copartners, for goods sold the firm. John E. Quackenbush was the only defendant who was served with the summons.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the general term of the city court, affirming an order of the special term upon a motion by the plaintiff for a new taxation of costs. William J. Bannerman sued “ John E. Quackenbush- & Son,” as copartners, for goods sold the firm. John E. Quackenbush was the only defendant who was served with the summons. He answered separately, setting up an off set for a debt due the firm, and served with the answer an offer to allow judgment to be taken “against him” for a sum specified, with interest and costs. Upon the trial, upon plaintiff’s motion, the title of the action was…
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
—The first sentence of section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure is identical with section 385 of the former Code, and provides: “The defendant may, before the trial, serve upon the plaintiff’s attorney, a written offer, to allow judgment to be taken against him for a sum or property, or to the effect therein specified, with costs.” Under the former Code, it was held that one joint debtor, or one copartner, might make an offer, that the plaintiff should take judgment against the defendant jointly liable, and if he were authorized to make such an offer by his co-defendants, *105or if there were a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Binney v. LeGalNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Everson v. GehrmanNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Garrison v. GarrisonNew York Supreme Court · 1884
- Griffiths v. De ForestNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- La Forge v. Chilson & WilliamsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.