Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer

New York Supreme Court

Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer

6 Hill & Den. 240

DecidedDecember 15, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Hill & Den. 240 (Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer) 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

Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer, 6 Hill & Den. 240 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Bronson, J.

This is an action against Henry Yan Rensselaer, and the words which follow his name—president of the St. Lawrence Bank—can only be regarded as a descriptio persones. The question was decided in Delafield v. v. Kinney, (24 Wend. 345.) It was also decided at the last term on the argument of a cause where the declaration was framed in the same way against an executor. And it is decided by all the precedents in the books where one is sued in autre droit. If the plaintiffs wished to recover a debt due from the St. Lawrence Bank, the declaration begins well enough by naming Yan Rensselaer, and describing him as president. But the pleader should then have proceeded to allege, that the St. Lawrence Bank was indebted, and, being indebted, promised to pay. And the breach should be, that the bank had not paid. And when one of these corporations sues in the name of its president, the pleader should allege that the defendant was indebted to the bank—not to the plaintiff.

It is said that the plaintiffs evidently intended to sue the St. Lawrence Bank. I do not doubt that the fact is so. But we are not interpreting a contract, and searching out the meaning of the parties from doubtful and equivocal words. This is a question of pleading, and'if we had an. affidavit that the pleader meant the bank, and not Yan Rensselaer, it would still be a declaration against the individual, and not against the bank.

As there is no pretence that Yan Rensselaer is insolvent, there is no foundation for the motion.

Motion denied.

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

By the Court, Bronson, J.

This is an action against Henry Yan Rensselaer, and the words which follow his name—president of the St. Lawrence Bank—can only be regarded as a descriptio persones. The question was decided in Delafield v. v. Kinney, (24 Wend. 345.) It was also decided at the last term on the argument of a cause where the declaration was framed in the same way against an executor. And it is decided by all the precedents in the books where one is sued in autre droit. If the plaintiffs wished to recover a debt due from the St. Lawrence Bank, the declaration begins well enough by naming Yan Rensselaer, and describing him as president. But the pleader should then have proceeded to allege, that the St. Lawrence Bank was indebted, and, being indebted, promised to pay. And the breach should be, that the bank had not paid. And when one of these corporations sues in the name of its president, the pleader should allege that the defendant was indebted to the bank—not to the plaintiff.

It is said that the plaintiffs evidently intended to sue the St. Lawrence Bank. I do not doubt that the fact is so. But we are not interpreting a contract, and searching out the meaning of the parties from doubtful and equivocal words. This is a question of pleading, and'if we had an. affidavit that the pleader meant the bank, and not Yan Rensselaer, it would still be a declaration against the individual, and not against the bank.

As there is no pretence that Yan Rensselaer is insolvent, there is no foundation for the motion.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Hill & Den. 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogdensburgh-bank-v-van-rensselaer-nysupct-1843.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack