Taylor & Twiss v. Pettibone
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error, brought an action in the Court below, against the plaintiffs in error. A warrant issued, which was only served upon Taylor, who alone appeared. The plaintiff below.declared on a judgment recovered by him, in a Justice’s Court, against the defendants below, for 17 dollars and 76 cents. The judgment declared on was proved, but it appeared, that it was recovered on process served only on,Twiss.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error, brought an action in the Court below, against the plaintiffs in error. A warrant issued, which was only served upon Taylor, who alone appeared. The plaintiff below.declared on a judgment recovered by him, in a Justice’s Court, against the defendants below, for 17 dollars and 76 cents. The judgment declared on was proved, but it appeared, that it was recovered on process served only on,Twiss. Taylor insisted, that the plaintiffbelow was bound to prove that he was liable with Twiss, on the original cause of action; hut the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The cases of Dando v. Doll and Tremper, (2 Johns, Rep, 87.) and the Bank of Columbia v. Newcomb and others, (6 Johns. Rep. 98.) decide this point. We there consider the judgment against the party not brought into court, as prima facie evidence of a debt, reserving to him the right to enter again into the merits, and Show that he ought not to have been charged. 1 '
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- D'Arcy v. KetchumSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Mervin & Goldsmith v. KumbelNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Oakley v. AspinwallNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- McCall v. AsburySupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Swift, Hurlburt & Co. v. StarkOregon Supreme Court · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.