Commission Co. v. Russ
This text of 8 Cow. 122 (Commission Co. v. Russ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We are aware of no such practice as the "plaintiff urges in this case. Where there is a nonjoinder in the process to bring in the defendants, Which is pleaded in abatement, we know of no remedy "for the defect by amendment. Ho case has, we believe, gone so far as to sanction an "amendment, even to save the plaintiff from the statute 'of limitations. Blake is not "a party before the court. He has no notice; and is no more bound to regard a notice "than he wóuld be if no capias had ever "issued against "any [123]*123body. The amendment may effect his rights materially. Indeed the avowed object is to deprive him, as well as the other defendants, of the plea of the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs must take the consequence of the plea in abatement.
Motion denied
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Cow. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commission-co-v-russ-nysupct-1828.