Egbert v. Hanson

34 Misc. 760, 71 N.Y.S. 1135
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1901·No. No. 2·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

McAdam, J.

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

Egbert v. Hanson, 34 Misc. 760, 71 N.Y.S. 1135 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

34 Misc. 760 (Egbert v. Hanson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green Bus Lines, Inc. v. Consolidated Mutual Insurance
74 A.D.2d 136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Stempel v. Sussman
129 N.Y.S. 154 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)