The People v. . Ames
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The action was for an insufficient and false return, and for negligence in failing to '¡collect an execution in favor of the plaintiffs against Oliver. C. Wright, Abram Moore and Timothy Baker, Jr.; the complaint alleging that Wright had real- and personal property in the county of Niagara, from which the executions could have been satisfied.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The action was for an insufficient and false return, and for negligence in failing to '¡collect an execution in favor of the plaintiffs against Oliver. C. Wright, Abram Moore and Timothy Baker, Jr.; the complaint alleging that Wright had real- and personal property in the county of Niagara, from which the executions could have been satisfied. The cause was tried before Judge Daniels, at the Niagara Circuit, and the following are the material facts deducible from the evidence: The execution was delivered to the defendant on the 28th of May, 1864. The sheriff,…
1Opinion of the CourtPostee, J.
The plaintiffs had a technical right of action, and were entitled to nominal damages, which they chose to waive. It was clearly in the power of the Supreme Court to permit an amendment of the return, correcting the omission as to the defendants Moore and Baker. (Barker v. Binninger, 14 N. Y., 270, 278.) The commencement of this suit was the only act of the plaintiffs on the faith of the original return; and the court, therefore, properly required the defendant to pay the costs thus far incurred, leaving it to the election of the attorney-general, to discontinue the action or to proceed in its…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barker v. . BinningerNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Champenois v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jeffries v. RudloffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Phœnix Insurance v. WulfU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1880
- Tuck v. ManningNew York Supreme Court · 1892