Taft v. Brewster

9 Johns. 334
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1812
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 9 Johns. 334 (Taft v. Brewster) 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
Taft v. Brewster, 9 Johns. 334 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bond must be considered as given by the defendants in their individual capacities. It is not the bond of the Baptist church; and if the defendants are not bound, the church certainly is not, for the church has not contracted either in its corporate name, or by its seal. The addition of trustees to the names of the defendants is, in this case, amere descriptio personamm. But there is one special cause of demurrer well taken, and that is, that the declaration is double, in assigning two distinct breaches^/ Several breaches may be assigned, under the statute, oirs. bond for the performance of covenants, or other colMeral matter; but this is not a bond within the act, for it is a bond for the payment of money only. The case is, therefore, to be governed by the common law rules of pleading, which would not permit the assignment of more than one breach, because one • was sufficient to forfeit the bond, and entitle the plaintiff to the pe= malty. If, therefore, a bond was conditioned to pay several sums of money at several days, a non-payment of any sum would forfeit the bond; and the plaintiff was permitted to assign a breach only of one of the payments, as, otherwise, it would be double; and duplicity is still bad on special demurrer. (2 Vent. 198. 1 Roll. Rep. 112. Cro. Car. 176.) Judgment must, therefore, be given for the defendants, with leave, nevertheless, to the plaintiff to mend on the usual terms.

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

Related

Smith v. Wagner
106 Misc. 170 (New York Supreme Court, 1919)
Baker v. Kilburn
77 Misc. 624 (New York Supreme Court, 1912)
Soule v. Palmer
49 N.Y.S. 475 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1897)
Bank v. Looney
99 Tenn. 278 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1897)
Cortland Wagon Co. v. Lynch
31 N.Y.S. 325 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Merchants' National Bank v. Clark
19 N.Y.S. 136 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Schmittler v. . Simon
5 N.E. 452 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Whitford v. . Laidler
94 N.Y. 145 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)
Whitford v. Laidler
32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 136 (New York Supreme Court, 1881)
Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad
55 How. Pr. 51 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)
Hood v. Hallenbeck
14 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 362 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Sperry v. Fanning
80 Ill. 371 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)
Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad
3 Thomp. & Cook 662 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Stott v. Rutherford
8 D.C. 7 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1873)
United States v. Stafford
27 F. Cas. 1284 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1871)
Booth v. Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank
4 Lans. 301 (New York Supreme Court, 1871)
Scott v. Baker
3 W. Va. 285 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1869)
Brinckerhoff v. Phelps
43 Barb. 469 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Rollins v. Phelps
5 Minn. 463 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Johns. 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taft-v-brewster-nysupct-1812.