Le Roy v. Shaw
The Superior Court of New York City
The action was brought, as against Paterson, for goods sold and delivered to him, and, as against Shaw, on his guarantee of payment for goods so sold, during one year, from June 11, 1852, to an amount not exceeding $400. A balance of $407.98 was alleged to be due, for which, with interest from January 5, 1853, judgment was prayed against both defendants. The defendant, Shaw, demurred to the complaint, and (among other causes) assigned the following.
Read the full summary
The action was brought, as against Paterson, for goods sold and delivered to him, and, as against Shaw, on his guarantee of payment for goods so sold, during one year, from June 11, 1852, to an amount not exceeding $400. A balance of $407.98 was alleged to be due, for which, with interest from January 5, 1853, judgment was prayed against both defendants. The defendant, Shaw, demurred to the complaint, and (among other causes) assigned the following. I. That several causes of action have been improperly united in this, to wit:—1. That the action is against two persons, who, as appears by the…
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
Prior to the Code, persons only severally liable, could not be included in the same action as parties defendants. The only exception was that made by the statute relating to suits against the parties to bills of exchange and promissory notes. That the Code intended to continue the same rule is obvious,—first, from § 120, which provides, that “ persons severally liable upon the same obligation or instrument, including the parties to bills of exchange and promissory notes, may all, or any of them, be included in the same action, at the option of the plaintiff'.”
If other sections of the Code,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hayden v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Livingston v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Lane v. FennNew York Supreme Court · 1912
- Phalen v. DingeeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1855
- Taylor v. T. Patterson & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1873