La Forge v. Chilson & Williamson
The Superior Court of New York City
Suit to recover $183,52 and interest, for goods sold to the defendants as partners, between January, 1844, and March, 1847. The defendant, Williamson, did not appear in the suit. Chilson appeared by attorney, and after the time for Williamson to answer had expired, served on the plaintiff’s attorney an offer in writing signed by his attorney, to allow the plaintiff to take judgment against him for $110, with interest from the day on which the suit was commenced, and costs.
Read the full summary
Suit to recover $183,52 and interest, for goods sold to the defendants as partners, between January, 1844, and March, 1847. The defendant, Williamson, did not appear in the suit. Chilson appeared by attorney, and after the time for Williamson to answer had expired, served on the plaintiff’s attorney an offer in writing signed by his attorney, to allow the plaintiff to take judgment against him for $110, with interest from the day on which the suit was commenced, and costs. At the same time he served an answer, denying the plaintiff’s claim, except as to $34,50. The cause was referred, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Sandford, J., (with the concurrence of the whole court.)
The plaintiff contends that the offer of Ohilson was nugatory, because not made by both of the defendants: That only one judgment can be entered in the action, and that must be against both defendants or against neither: And that section 385 of the code, provides only for an offer to be made by all the defendants jointly liable in the action.
The section, it is true, speaks of “ the defendant,” and the offer to be made is that judgment may be taken against “ him” and literally, this would require all the defendants, where there are more…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bannerman v. QuackenbushNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1886
- Bannerman v. QuackenbushNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1885
- Fullerton v. TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Potter v. GatesNew York Supreme Court · 1890