Taylor & Twiss v. Pettibone
16 Johns. 66
Opinion
The cases of Dando v. Doll and Tremper, (2 Johns, Rep, 87.) and the Bank of Columbia v. Newcomb and others, (6 Johns. Rep. 98.) decide this point. We there consider the judgment against the party not brought into court, as prima facie evidence of a debt, reserving to him the right to enter again into the merits, and Show that he ought not to have been charged. 1 '
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Taylor & Twiss v. Pettibone, 16 Johns. 66 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).
16 Johns. 66 (Taylor & Twiss v. Pettibone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McCall v. Asbury
9 S.E.2d 765 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Swift, Hurlburt & Co. v. Stark
2 Or. 97 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1864)
Oakley v. Aspinwall
4 N.Y. 514 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)
D'Arcy v. Ketchum
52 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court, 1851)
Mervin & Goldsmith v. Kumbel
23 Wend. 293 (New York Supreme Court, 1840)
Executors of Leake v. Lawrence
1 Ant. N.P. Cas. 331 (Superior Court of New York, 1836)
Townsend v. Carman
6 Cow. 695 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)