Otis v. Wakeman
New York Supreme Court
Debt, on recognizance of bail taken in an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against A. F. James, and Wm. R Taylor, in the supreme court of the state of New-Jersey. Plea, to the jurisdiction, that this court ought not to take cognizance of > the action, because at and ever since the time of becoming bail, the defendant was and still is, a .freeholder and resident of the state of New-Jersey, within and subject to the jurisdiction of the supreme court of that state.
Read the full summary
Debt, on recognizance of bail taken in an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against A. F. James, and Wm. R Taylor, in the supreme court of the state of New-Jersey. Plea, to the jurisdiction, that this court ought not to take cognizance of > the action, because at and ever since the time of becoming bail, the defendant was and still is, a .freeholder and resident of the state of New-Jersey, within and subject to the jurisdiction of the supreme court of that state. Replication, that the plaintiffs, at the time of the commencement of this suit were, and still are, citizens and…
1Opinion of the Court
■ By the Court, Bronson, J.
The replication is good for nothing. The question is on the plea. Actions against special bail and upon bail bonds, should, in general, be brought in the court in which the original suit was com*605menced: though where there is a necessity for doing so, the action may be brought in another court. In this case, there was no necessity for suing in- this state, and the action should have been brought in New-Jersey, where the defendant could have such relief as the laws of that state and the practice of its courts may afford to special bail. But the defendant’s remedy was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lawrence v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Matthews v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1834