Seaman v. Slater

18 F. 485, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2425
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedNovember 16, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 F. 485 (Seaman v. Slater) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Seaman v. Slater, 18 F. 485, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2425 (circtsdny 1883).

Opinion

Wallace, J.

Whether the deceased defendant was a partner or a tenant in common with the surviving defendant the action cannot be revived against the representatives of the decedent so as to proceed against them and the survivor jointly, because there cannot be a judgment against one de bonis teslatoris and against the other de bonis propriis. If, as would seem to bo the case, the liability of the original defendants upon the cause of action alleged in the complaint is a [486]*486joint'and not a joint aind several liability, the remedy of plaintiff, as against the representatives of the decedent, is in equity, after his remedy shall have been exhausted at law against the survivor. If the liability is several as well as joint, inasmuch as the cause of action survives, a severance of the action may be allowed, so that it can proceed separately against-the survivor and the representatives of the decedent. The question whether plaintiff can proceed separately against both the survivor and the representatives of the decedent is one of too much importance to be decided upon a motion which relates to the procedure merely, when there can be no review. The representatives of the deceased defendant can avail themselves, by way of defense of the suit against them, of any objection to the right of the plaintiff to maintain such suit, and the questions presented can be more appropriately decided then.

An order for a severance, and for bringing in the representatives of the deceased defendant accordingly, may be entered if plaintiff elects to adopt that course.

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

Related

Frankenstein v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
6 F. Supp. 569 (S.D. New York, 1934)
Great Western Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Harris' Estate
111 F. 38 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 F. 485, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaman-v-slater-circtsdny-1883.