Bannerman v. Quackenbush
City of New York Municipal Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, C. J.
The defendants are sued as partners upon a partnership indebtedness. The defendant John E. Quack*83enbush appeared and defended the action. His co-defendant was not served with process and did not appear. John E. served an offer to allow judgment to be taken “ against him ” for sixty-five dollars and fifty-four cents, with interest from January 27, 1883, with costs. The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants “jointly’’for seventy-two dollars and ninety-one cents, but this included interest, so that the judgment, “ in amount,” is not more favorable than the offer. The question…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Heermance v. JamesNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Binney v. LeGalNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Everson v. GehrmanNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Garrison v. GarrisonNew York Supreme Court · 1884
- Griffiths v. De ForestNew York Supreme Court · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.