Jackson v. Cooper
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, in which the defendants severed in their appearances, entered into separate consent rules, and pleaded separately. The plaintiff had, in a former term, obtained leave to amend, by altering the name of the lessor of the [*20] plaintiff from John to * William Jauncey; but the notices on which the motibn was founded, were entitled as above, against both defendants.
1Per curiam
The objection taken against the notices and rules is, that, as the defendants appeared by distinct attorneys, and entered into separate consent rules, these oir*33cumstanees required separate and distinct proceedings, and ought to have been entered and entitled as separate; that is, that the notices should have been separate, addressed to each party, and the rules entered accordingly. The notice given to Van Schaick, attorney for Cooper, is entitled against two; and it is on that notice the application is made. The court are of opinion that this is the regular way in which the notice should be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re the Accounting of Title Guarantee & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Ten Eyck v. . CraigNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Doty v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Pearson v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1883