Schuyler v. Yates

11 N.Y. 185
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1834·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

A demurrer, whether general or special, must be signed by counsel, and if not so signed, the plaintiff may treat it as a nullity. So is the English practice, and such of course is our practice. 1 Tidd’s Pr. 650. 2 Bos. & Pull. 336. 3 id. 171, n. In Douglas v. Child, 2 Bos. & Pull. 336, n., a general demurrer, without a serjeant’s signature, was treated as a nullity ; Eyre, Ch. J., said it was great presumption in an attorney to take upon himself to decide when a party should demur, or join in demurrer; counsel must join ; an attorney must not alone sanction so important a step as to admit that all the facts on the other side were well pleaded. The reason assigned by the chief justice does not so well apply here, where the same person is licensed both as an attorney and counsel; but while we recognize the distinction *between attorney and counsel, and hold that the practice of the king’s bench is the practice of this court, when not altered or modified, we must say that a demurrer without the signature of coun sel is defective, and that the opposite party may disregard it.

Motion denied.

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

Schuyler v. Yates, 11 N.Y. 185 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).

11 N.Y. 185 (Schuyler v. Yates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Madison County Trust & Deposit Co. v. Smith
233 A.D. 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)
Steven v. Lord
32 N.Y.S. 309 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Leach v. Asher
20 Mo. App. 656 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
First Nat. Bank of Utica v. . Ballou
49 N.Y. 155 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Conway v. Wharton
13 Minn. 158 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1868)