Egbert v. Hanson
This text of 34 Misc. 760 (Egbert v. Hanson) 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
This" action differs from the preceding one in ttie fact that the note in question, for $8,000, was a joint one made by the plaintiffs Egbert and Lowther and by Hanson, the defendant’s testator, and Cameron.
The plaintiffs, having been obliged to pay the obligation at maturity, are entitled to contribution of one-fourth of the amount from the defendant. Dillenbeck v. Dygert, 97 N. Y. 303; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.) 110; Bradley v. Burwell, 3 Den. 61.
There is no variance between the pleadings and the proof, and if there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff that objection should have been taken by demurrer or answer. Code, § 499; Williams v. Ingersoll, 23 Hun, 284.
Judgment in favor of plaintiffs, with disbursements, but without costs or allowance. ■
Judgment for plaintiffs, without .costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 Misc. 760, 71 N.Y.S. 1135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/egbert-v-hanson-nysupct-1901.