Nathanson v. Spitz
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Assumpsit on certain checks signed by defendants Adams & Spitz. Certified from the Common Pleas Division on demurrer to a plea in abatement.
1Opinion of the CourtTillinghast, J.
At the'time of the suing out of the plaintiff’s.writ in this case, the defendants, Samuel Adams and Jacob Spitz, were copartners in business under the firm name of “Adams & Spitz,” at Boston in the State of Massachusetts, where they both resided. The writ was served by arresting the defendant Spitz while temporarily in this State, and by sending an attested copy of said writ by mail to the defendant Adams, at Boston. The defendant Spitz entered a special appearance for himself and filed a plea in abatement on the ground that there had been no legal service upon the defendant Adams, the other…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hall v. LanningSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Tappan v. BruenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Page v. BrantIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- Kent v. HollidayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1861
- Dillman v. SchultzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by6 opinions
- Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of MarinSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- McKenna v. AustinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
- Nisenzon v. SadowskiSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997
- Billings & Co. v. Pine Street Realty Associates Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1990
- Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of MarinSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.