Rowley v. Chautauque County Bank
New York Supreme Court
moved to quash the writ of summons issued and served in each of these suits, on the ground that the process was not in the proper form. By the writ the sheriff was commanded to summon the defendants to answer the plaintiff, “of a plea of trespass on the case upon promises,' to his damage of one hundred and ten dollars.” There was no further statement of the cause of action.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bronson, J.
The plaintiffs were right in proceeding by summons, though it would have been otherwise had the action been brought against an individual. Lynch v. Mechanics Bank, 13 Johns. R. 127. 2 R. S. 347, § 1. Ib. 458, § 4. But there has been an entire departure from established precedents in setting forth the cause of action. In assumpsit and other actions on the case, the original writ sets forth the cause of action in the same ample form as it is stated in the declaration. No precedent has been mentioned, nor do I find any, which warrants the general statement contained in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ferguson v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Hayward v. HoytNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- People ex rel. Stranahan v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1884