Garland v. Chattle
New York Supreme Court
for.:thedefendáh]t,mp.ved tpset aside the verdict in this, cause,, on the-, grounds of irregularity and* surprise. From .the . . . ? _ °J - , , ' . 1 ... atiidavits which. were read, it appeared that a writ was issued . '7 rr against Chattle alone, at the• suit of the plaintiff, on.the 9th- of ^ anuaryy 1.815,. returnable On Saturday, the last, day oí January tern*» i The'plaintiff’s attorney being afterwards informed^ that the demand was against Chattle and Clough, for…
Read the full summary
for.:thedefendáh]t,mp.ved tpset aside the verdict in this, cause,, on the-, grounds of irregularity and* surprise. From .the . . . ? _ °J - , , ' . 1 ... atiidavits which. were read, it appeared that a writ was issued . '7 rr against Chattle alone, at the• suit of the plaintiff, on.the 9th- of ^ anuaryy 1.815,. returnable On Saturday, the last, day oí January tern*» i The'plaintiff’s attorney being afterwards informed^ that the demand was against Chattle and Clough, for money paid to the defendants On the 12th of Janv.ary, 1809, as partners in trade, and that Clough had, absconded and gone to…
1Per curiam
The variance between the declaration and the writ, should have been taken advantage of in the proper time; but after plea pleaded by the defendant, Chattle, it is too late for him to make the objection. The writ was issued within the six years, and the declaration is to be considered as a continuance of the same suit, so that the statute was no bar. The motion: must be denied.
Motion denied*
2Cited by7 opinions
- Society for Propagating the Gospel v. WhitcombSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1820
- Reeder v. MooreMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Buckwalter v. United StatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Beekman v. SatterleeNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Cornell v. MatthewsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.