Baird v. Walker
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of debt upon a bond executed by the defendants Walker, Crafts & Clarke, upon the issuing of an attachment in favor of Baird, the plaintiff, against Walker as a non-resident debtor. Plea nil debet, and the statute of limitations, as to the debt owing to the plaintiff by Walker. Replication taking issue upon the second plea. The cause was tried at the Hew-York circuit in October, 1849, before Justice Jones,, and a jury.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt upon a bond executed by the defendants Walker, Crafts & Clarke, upon the issuing of an attachment in favor of Baird, the plaintiff, against Walker as a non-resident debtor. Plea nil debet, and the statute of limitations, as to the debt owing to the plaintiff by Walker. Replication taking issue upon the second plea. The cause was tried at the Hew-York circuit in October, 1849, before Justice Jones,, and a jury. The plaintiff proved that in the year 1838 he left with the firm of Walker & Co. at Chicago, a quantity of axes for sale on commission. Said firm was composed…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Edmonds, P. J.
The first prominent objection made to the recovery in this case is founded on the fact that the debt was a joint one of Walker & Hurlburt, while the attachment was issued only against Walker. I can not feel the force of the objection; for it is evident that Walker, although he was jointly indebted, came within the statute, inasmuch as he was a person not being a resident of this state, indebted on a contract made within this state; (2 R. & 3, § 2;) and he could be proceeded against under the statute.
The next objection is, that a proper demand was not made by the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Scholey v. . HalseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- John v. EytingeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867
- Northrop v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Sullivan v. FosdickNew York Supreme Court · 1877