Travis v. Tobias, McGregor & Reynolds
New York Supreme Court
In November 1850, the plaintiffs issued a summons in this action, and stated therein that if the defendants failed to answer the complaint, the plaintiffs would apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint, being the clause required by the 2d subdivision of § 129 of the Code.
Read the full summary
In November 1850, the plaintiffs issued a summons in this action, and stated therein that if the defendants failed to answer the complaint, the plaintiffs would apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint, being the clause required by the 2d subdivision of § 129 of the Code. The plaintiffs also applied to the county judge of Washington county and obtained on the 13th November 1850, an attachment under § 227 of the Code, against the defendants as non residents of this state. On the 23d November, the summons and attachment were served on the defendant Tobias, at Whitehall in…
1Opinion of the Court
Willard, Justice.
1. The first objection is that the summons is against three persons, and the complaint against one alone. Under the former practice where the writ did not require special bail, several persons might be named as defendants, and the plaintiff might declare and proceed against any one of them separately (Roosevelt vs. Soulden, 16 J. R. 44; Montgomery vs. Hasbrouck, 3 id. 538). Such was also the English practice (4 T. R. 696, 697; 5 id. 722). But in bailable actions when the *92defendant was held to bail, the plaintiff was bound to pursue the process in his declaration, and if he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Walker v. HubbardNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Bell v. CarrellNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by3 opinions
- Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz & SonsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Weidman v. SibleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Weidman v. SibleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897