Miller v. McCan
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a final decree of the vice chanlor of the seventh circuit dismissing the complainant’s bill with costs.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a final decree of the vice chanlor of the seventh circuit dismissing the complainant’s bill with costs. It was alleged in the bill that in March, 1834, the complainant and A. V. Suydam gave to the defendant a joint and several promissory note, for $200, payable on the second day of May thereafter; that the note was given for a debt due to the defendant from Suydam only, and was signed by the complainant merely as his surety, which facts the defendant well knew at the time he received the note. The complainant further alleged, in his bill, that when the note became due…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
A general decree dismissing the bill was erroneous, even if Suydam was a necessary party; for such a decree is an absolute bar to another suit in which all the proper parties are brought before the court. The proper course, where there is a want of necessary parties, is either to order the cause to stand over, to enable the complainant to bring the necessary parties before the court; or the bill should be dismissed without prejudice, so that his right to bring a new suit, making all proper persons parties thereto, will not be barred by the decree. (Van Epps v. Van Deusen, 4…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Sherman v. . ParishNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Lane & Saylor v. Scott & CulverTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Stillwell v. AaronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Vilas & Bacon v. Jones & PiercyNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
- Farley v. BryantSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1851
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.