D. & N. Arnold v. Tallmadge
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to declaration. The declaration commenced by stating that the plaintiffs complained of the defendant of a plea that he rendered to them $4000, which he owed to and unjustly detained from them.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to declaration. The declaration commenced by stating that the plaintiffs complained of the defendant of a plea that he rendered to them $4000, which he owed to and unjustly detained from them. It then proceeded in the first count to state that on the 24th of August, 1836, the defendant and one Jacob R. Van Benthuysen, together with a certain corporation called the Dutchess Whaling Company, by a certain writing obligatory, sealed, &c., the date whereof is the same day and yearlast aforesaid, acknowledged themselves to be held and firmly bound unto the said plaintiffs, and unto certain…
1Opinion of the Court
*529 By the Court,
Co wen, J.
The principle of the demurrer in this case is, that the suit is by two of the several obligees without joining the others. It is not denied that this objection would be fatal at the common law, Ehle v. Purdy, 6 Wend. 629; and if a separate suit in the name of each obligee be admissible, such anomaly must depend for its sanction on the statute which gives this proceeding. 2 R. S. 404, 2d ed. The 15th section is mainly relied upon, which provides that “ Every such bond shall be held for the common benefit of all the attaching creditors, and may be prosecuted by any of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ehle v. PurdyNew York Supreme Court · 1831
3Cited by6 opinions
- Miller v. . CookNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Bowdoin v. ColemanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
- Pearce v. . HitchcockNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Straus v. WeilTennessee Supreme Court · 1867
- Pearce v. . HitchcockNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.