Stockwell v. Bates

New York Supreme Court

Stockwell v. Bates

10 Abb. Pr. 381

DecidedMarch 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Abb. Pr. 381 (Stockwell v. Bates) 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

Stockwell v. Bates, 10 Abb. Pr. 381 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Cardozo, J.

The claim, as was conceded by the plaintiff’s counsel, is only against the State of Illinois. There is no cause of action against Mr. Bates. The case is not within the principle of Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat., 738). .

There, an officer of the State was attempting to make a collection which was sought to be restrained. The action could properly be brought against him, although the State was ultimately to be benefited by the money. When an individual is liable to be sued, and a State has any interest in the litigation, it may be made a party, to give it an opportunity to appear, if it chooses; but I find no case which will justify, in a suit against a State, upon a cause of action solely against it, the joinder of a merely nominal party, against whom no cause of action exists, and no judgment can be had, so as to attach money of the State, and thereby coerce its appearance.

I think the attachment must be vacated.

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

Cardozo, J.

The claim, as was conceded by the plaintiff’s counsel, is only against the State of Illinois. There is no cause of action against Mr. Bates. The case is not within the principle of Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat., 738). .

There, an officer of the State was attempting to make a collection which was sought to be restrained. The action could properly be brought against him, although the State was ultimately to be benefited by the money. When an individual is liable to be sued, and a State has any interest in the litigation, it may be made a party, to give it an opportunity to appear, if it chooses; but I find no case which will justify, in a suit against a State, upon a cause of action solely against it, the joinder of a merely nominal party, against whom no cause of action exists, and no judgment can be had, so as to attach money of the State, and thereby coerce its appearance.

I think the attachment must be vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Abb. Pr. 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockwell-v-bates-nysupct-1871.

Opinion

I think the attachment must be vacated.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack