Suydam v. Ewing
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This was an application, on behalf of surviving plaintiffs in three suits, for leave to revive and prosecute two of them in the names of Francis P. Sage, Ferdinand Suy-dam, Jr., and Charles Suydam, or in the names of Charles Suydam, and of Samuel S. Whitney, assignee of Francis P. Sage and Ferdinand Suydam, Jr., and the third in the names of Francis P. Sage, Henry L. Suy-dam, Ferdinand Suydam, Jr., and Charles Suydam, as surviving partners of the firm of Suydam, Sage & Co.,…
Read the full summary
This was an application, on behalf of surviving plaintiffs in three suits, for leave to revive and prosecute two of them in the names of Francis P. Sage, Ferdinand Suy-dam, Jr., and Charles Suydam, or in the names of Charles Suydam, and of Samuel S. Whitney, assignee of Francis P. Sage and Ferdinand Suydam, Jr., and the third in the names of Francis P. Sage, Henry L. Suy-dam, Ferdinand Suydam, Jr., and Charles Suydam, as surviving partners of the firm of Suydam, Sage & Co., or in the names of Charles Suydam, and of Samuel S. Whitney, assignee of Francis P. Sage and Ferdinand Suydam, Jr., and…
1Opinion of the Court
BETTS, District Judge.
The practice of the state courts has been changed by a recent act of the legislature, so that suits must now be brought in the name of the real party in. interest. Laws N. Y. 1849, c. 438, 5 111. Prior to that statute, the rule of proceeding in that respect was founded upon the practice of the king’s bench in England, and required actions to be brought in the name of the party, in whom the legal interest was vested. 1 Dunl. Prac. 36; Grah. Prac. 59; 1 Chit. Pl. 16, 17; 1 Tidd, Prac. 7. The United States courts follow the same rule, except where the assignee is authorized…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Holmes v. D'CampNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Bernard v. WilcoxNew York Supreme Court · 1801
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. Amsinck & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1873
- Noyes v. BarnardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1894