Penny v. Martin
New York Court of Chancery
THE plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit in the Su-, preme Court, against the defendants, Roorback and Mitchell, for meal and corn sold to them, as partners. The capias was returned taken as to Mitchell, and not found as to Roor- ■ back. A second capias was issued against R. to answer simulcumM. which was returned not found.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit in the Su-, preme Court, against the defendants, Roorback and Mitchell, for meal and corn sold to them, as partners. The capias was returned taken as to Mitchell, and not found as to Roor- ■ back. A second capias was issued against R. to answer simulcumM. which was returned not found. The plaintiffs then proceeded against M., under the act, (1 N. R. L. 515. sess. 36. ck. 56. sec. 13.) which declares, that whén in a suit against joint debtors, all are not taken and brought into Court, the plaintiff shall have judgment and execution;' in the same…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellob.
The facts in this case are few and simple. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, R. and M., as partners in assumpsit, at law, and M. only was taken. The suit was carried on, under the provision in the statute, against - M., who was taken, and judgment rendered against both R. and M. ; and the remedy under it is limited by the statute to an execution against the joint property of both the defendants, and the separate property and person of the one taken. On issuing execution, it was found that there *568was no joint property, and that M., the defendant taken, was insolvent. Since that…
2Cited by14 opinions
- City of Burlington v. GilbertSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Armstrong v. DeshlerOhio Supreme Court · 1843
- Dickinson v. EichornSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Smith v. BlackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- Barthell v. RoderickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.