Pardee v. Haynes & Merriam

10 Wend. 630
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1834
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 10 Wend. 630 (Pardee v. Haynes & Merriam) 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
Pardee v. Haynes & Merriam, 10 Wend. 630 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

By the statute of April 89, 1833, Laws of 1833, p. 395, § 3,. a declaration may be served on one of several joint debtors, and the defendant so served shall answer to the plaintiff, and the judgment shall be against all the defendants in the same manner as if all had been served with the declaration ; the judgment and execution to have the like effect as if process had been issued and served on one of the defendants. This statute was passed to remedy an inconvenience under the revised statutes which required the declaration to be served upon all the defendants.

The proceedings in this case were regular under the revised statutes as amended by the act of 1833; and the effect is to make the judgment a lien upon the joint property of both defendants, and the separate property of Haynes. The execution, though on its face it will conform to the judgment, will be endorsed, to be enforced against the joint property of both defendants and the separate property of Haynes. The cases in 1 Wendell, 311, and 9 Wendell, 437, are not now applicable, as the difficulties in those cases as to entering judgment, are obviated by the act of 1833.

The defendant Merriam swears to merits, but his own affidavit shows that the goods were not paid for. One of the plaintiffs and Haynes show by their affidavits that the plaintiffs were to collect their demand whenever they thought it unsafe; and Haynes agreed it should be due and payable. [632]*632This he had a right to do. The proceedings appear to be all fair and reg ular. The motion to set aside the judgment must be denied with costs,

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

Related

Potter v. Gates
2 Silv. Sup. 389 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Lahey v. Kingon
13 Abb. Pr. 192 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Paton v. Wright
15 How. Pr. 481 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1858)
Bacon v. Comstock
11 How. Pr. 197 (New York Supreme Court, 1855)
Emery v. Emery & Redfield
9 How. Pr. 130 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Oakley v. Aspinwall
2 Sandf. 7 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1848)
Judson v. Houghton
1 How. App. Cas. 401 (New York Court of Appeals, 1848)
Hymann v. Cook
1 How. App. Cas. 419 (New York Court of Appeals, 1848)
Kidd v. Brown
2 How. Pr. 20 (New York Supreme Court, 1845)
Groesbeck v. Brown
2 How. Pr. 21 (New York Supreme Court, 1845)
Waring v. Robinson
1 Hoff. Ch. 524 (New York Court of Chancery, 1840)
St. John & Witherell v. S. & L. W. Holmes
20 Wend. 609 (New York Supreme Court, 1839)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Wend. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pardee-v-haynes-merriam-nysupct-1834.