Norbury v. Seeley
New York Supreme Court
—This was an action upon a promissory note signed by Castle Seeley and Garret Tollee as principals, and Uathan Clark, Jr. as surety. The defendants were all served with a summons in the usual form, stating that if they should fail to answer the complaint, &e., the plaintiffs would take judgment for the amount of the note, with interest. None of the defendants having answered, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.
Read the full summary
—This was an action upon a promissory note signed by Castle Seeley and Garret Tollee as principals, and Uathan Clark, Jr. as surety. The defendants were all served with a summons in the usual form, stating that if they should fail to answer the complaint, &e., the plaintiffs would take judgment for the amount of the note, with interest. None of the defendants having answered, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment. A motion was made on behalf of the defendant Clark, upon an affidavit stating that he is a mere surety for the other, defendants, upon the note; that provision may be made in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
By the 274th section of the code, it is provided that the judgment to be rendered m an action may determine, not merely the rights between the plaintiffs and defendants, but also the ultimate rights between the plaintiffs or the defendants as among themselves.
It is supposed by the counsel who made tMs motion, that this provision confers upon the court the power, when rendering judgment for the plaintiffs upon the note, to proceed further, and render judgment, contingently, in favor of the surety against Ms principals. Perhaps this is so. The language of the section referred to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rust v. HauseltThe Superior Court of New York City · 1880