People ex rel. Coulter v. New-York C. P.

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Coulter v. New-York C. P.

19 Wend. 117

DecidedJune 15, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Wend. 117 (People ex rel. Coulter v. New-York C. P.) 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

People ex rel. Coulter v. New-York C. P., 19 Wend. 117 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1838).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Bronson, J.

We have given a liberal construction to the statutes authorizing the holder to proceed against several parties to a bill or note in one action [119]*119I think the court should have ordered a new trial as against the maker only, and allowed the endorser to proceed to judgment on the verdict in his favor. instead of bringing separate suits, as was necessary at the common law. Statutes, sess. of 1832, p. 489, and sess, of 1835, p. 248, The plaintiff may sever the action and proceed to judgment against one party, when an obstacle is interposed by another; and I think the statute should be so construed as to authorize the severance of the action whenever that course is necessary to protect the rights of one or more of the defendants. Had the indoi~ser been sued alone, the verdict in his favor would not have been disturbed. As I understand the opinion of the court below, the only ground for ordering a new trial so far as he is concerned is, that he was sued jointly with the maker, who made out no defence.

Alternative mandamus granted.

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

By the Court,

Bronson, J.

We have given a liberal construction to the statutes authorizing the holder to proceed against several parties to a bill or note in one action [119]*119I think the court should have ordered a new trial as against the maker only, and allowed the endorser to proceed to judgment on the verdict in his favor. instead of bringing separate suits, as was necessary at the common law. Statutes, sess. of 1832, p. 489, and sess, of 1835, p. 248, The plaintiff may sever the action and proceed to judgment against one party, when an obstacle is interposed by another; and I think the statute should be so construed as to authorize the severance of the action whenever that course is necessary to protect the rights of one or more of the defendants. Had the indoi~ser been sued alone, the verdict in his favor would not have been disturbed. As I understand the opinion of the court below, the only ground for ordering a new trial so far as he is concerned is, that he was sued jointly with the maker, who made out no defence.

Alternative mandamus granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Wend. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-coulter-v-new-york-c-p-nysupct-1838.