Bailey v. Hodges
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The defendants weTe described in the writ as “ surviving partners of Henry Hodges, late of said Clarendon, deceased', in the lumbering and milling business at Castleton in the county of Rutland'. The declaration was in common form. • Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported', that the defendants objected to the allowance of the plaintiff's account, upon the ground that William- P. Russell, of the city of New-York, was not…
Read the full summary
Book Account. The defendants weTe described in the writ as “ surviving partners of Henry Hodges, late of said Clarendon, deceased', in the lumbering and milling business at Castleton in the county of Rutland'. The declaration was in common form. • Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported', that the defendants objected to the allowance of the plaintiff's account, upon the ground that William- P. Russell, of the city of New-York, was not joined as a defendant in the suit. It appeared, that the accounts in the case accrued between the plaintiff, on the one…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It appears, that William P. Russell was one of the partners in the Castleton Land Company, and that he was not made a co-defendant in the suit. This was urged, before the auditor, as a reason why the report should have been for the defendants;- and it *620is for us to consider the validity of this objection to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.
It need hardly be stated, that, in actions at the common law, founded upon contract, a non-joinder of'a defendant is only matter of abatement and is of no avail upon the trial of the merits. In Loomis v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Adams v. BlissSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Loomis v. BarrettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832