Myer v. Cole

12 Johns. 349
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 349 (Myer v. Cole) 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.

Bluebook
Myer v. Cole, 12 Johns. 349 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The declaration is clearly bad. The cause of action, stated in the last count, arose after the death of the testatrix, and could not be joined with a cause of action arising in her lifetime. It would require different judgments. The defendants would be personally liable On the cause of action as stated in that count; for the promise is not alleged to have been made by them as executors. They were only named as executors, as a mere des crip tio persona, (Bridgen v. Parkes, 2 Bos. & Pull. 424. Jennings v. Newman, 4 Term Rep. 347. Carter v. Phelps's administrator, 8 Johns. Rep. 440.) That the funeral expenses of the defendants’ testatrix would be payable out of her estate, is no answer to the form of the declaration. It was a cause of action arising after her death, and for which she could have made no promise. There must be judgment for the defendants, with leave to amend, on payment of costs.

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

Related

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Meng
188 A.D. 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Mailly v. Elliott
75 A. 472 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1910)
Painter v. Kaiser
76 P. 747 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1904)
Bauerle v. Long
52 L.R.A. 643 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
Patterson v. Buchanan
40 A.D. 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Parker v. . Day
49 N.E. 1046 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
McLaughlin v. Winner
23 N.W. 402 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Barker v. Kunkel
10 Ill. App. 407 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1882)
Wilson v. Staats
33 N.J. Eq. 524 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1881)
Austin v. . Munro
47 N.Y. 360 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Ferrin v. Myrick
53 Barb. 76 (New York Supreme Court, 1869)
Luscomb v. Ballard
71 Mass. 403 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1855)
Pugsley v. Aikin
14 Barb. 114 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Benjamin v. Taylor & De Groot
12 Barb. 328 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Hemphill v. Hamilton
6 Ark. 425 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1850)
Robbins v. Gillett
2 Pin. 439 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1850)
Worden v. Worthington
2 Barb. 368 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Latting v. Latting
4 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 31 (New York Court of Chancery, 1846)
Davis v. French
20 Me. 21 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1841)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Johns. 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myer-v-cole-nysupct-1815.