President, &c. of the Bank of Chenango v. Root
New York Supreme Court
The' defendant, Root, an attorney, being sued with another by capias, the' plaintiff had proceeded to-judgment him, as a common person, -by filing the declaration, and affixing notices, &c, in the Clerk’s office, &c. He had given no notice of appearancé totheplaintiíí'’s attorney, either in-his own name, or that of any other" attorney, nor that he should defend the cause.
Read the full summary
The' defendant, Root, an attorney, being sued with another by capias, the' plaintiff had proceeded to-judgment him, as a common person, -by filing the declaration, and affixing notices, &c, in the Clerk’s office, &c. He had given no notice of appearancé totheplaintiíí'’s attorney, either in-his own name, or that of any other" attorney, nor that he should defend the cause. On thisstate offacts, the defend-ánt’had given notice of a non-énumeráted motion to- set ° aside the default for irregularity. The: "affidavits iiropposition tethemotion gave the same history,and went on to détab other…
1Opinion of the Court
[Sutherland, J.
We have decided to the same effect, ovér and over again.]
[Woodworth, J.
The being joined with common persons, as defendant in the same process, takes away the attorney’s privilege. This we have often decided.(a)]
Talcott. This is true as to the service of the writ: but 11 I am not aware that the rule has been extended to the service of subsequent papers. This does not depend on the common law, but on the practice of the Court.
He next took the ground that here could be no judgment for the plaintiff, upon the whole record. The contract of the defendants was joint; and a-verdict for…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Allen v. HarrahSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Dabney v. StidgerMississippi Supreme Court · 1840
- Patrick v. BeazleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1842
- United States v. BarkerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1823