Bell v. Carrell
New York Supreme Court
Capias ad resp. with ac etiam, “ for $500 upon promises,” against Carrell Peck, and Potter D. Peck, the two last being administrator and administratrix of W. Lovell, deceased. The appearance■ of Carrell, Potter, and D. Peck, was endorsed upon the capias, and the plaintiff’s dex A Glared against Carrell alone.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
Both according to the English rule and our own, the plaintiff may declare separately against the defendants, upon process not bailable ; but it is otherwise as to process bailable. This distinction is abundantly established by several of the cases referred to by the defendant’s counsel; *195and the only question is, whether the capias is bailable or v A not, within the meaning of the rule. We think the circumstance of an appearance having been indorsed, does not vary the case, for the purposes of this proceeding. The true inquiry is, whether the action, as expressed in the ac etiam, calls…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hemson v. DeckerNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Travis v. Tobias, McGregor & ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1851