Jackson ex dem. Roman v. Sidney

12 Johns. 185
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1815·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The declaration contains separate demises from each lessor, and upon the trial it was offered, on the part of the plaintiff, to show a separate title in each lessor to a distinct part of the premises in question; and this was objected to and overruled by the judge, and the plaintiff compelled to elect, and proceed upon one count only. Had. the lessors been tenants in common of the premises there could be no doubt but that they would have had a right to recover the whole, if they could have shown a title to the same. And there can be no good reason against their showing a separate title in, each to a distinct part. It cannot subject the defendant to any inconvenience, or operate as a surprise upon him; and the costs to which he may be made liable, on a recovery against him, will [186] be. much less than if four separate actions were brought. It is a course, therefore, that ought to be. encouraged, as it prevents multiplicity of suits. A new trial must, therefore, be awarded, with , costs, to abide the event of the suit.

New trial granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jackson ex dem. Roman v. Sidney, 12 Johns. 185 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

12 Johns. 185 (Jackson ex dem. Roman v. Sidney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wheat v. Morris
21 D.C. 11 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1892)
Tarver v. Smith
38 Ala. 135 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)
Doe, on the demise of Rice v. Dignowitty
12 Miss. 57 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1844)
Magruder v. Peter
4 G. & J. 323 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1832)
Den v. Snowhill
13 N.J.L. 23 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1831)
Barrow's Lesse v. Navee
10 Tenn. 227 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1828)
Dan v. Brown
4 Cow. 483 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)