Clark v. Samuel
1 Root 486
Opinion
Judgment • — ■ That the plea in abatement is sufficient. In tbis case, service upon botb of tbe defendants is necessary; and no service having been made upon either until after Wil-' bands death, the action cannot be said to' have been commenced in bis lifetime, although tbe writ was prayed out before; and not having been commenced in tbe life of said William, it doth not survive against tbe surviving defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clark v. Samuel, 1 Root 486 (Colo. 1793).
1 Root 486 (Clark v. Samuel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Valley Cable Vision, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
392 A.2d 485 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1978)
Glebus v. Fillmore
104 F. Supp. 902 (D. Connecticut, 1952)
Spinning v. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co.
2 Disney (Ohio) 336 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1858)
Gates v. Bushnell
9 Conn. 538 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1833)
Spalding v. Butts
6 Conn. 28 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1825)
Jencks v. Phelps
4 Conn. 149 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1822)