History
  • No items yet
midpage
Morange v. Mudge
6 Abb. Pr. 243
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1857
Check Treatment
Davies, J.

Shaw v. Tobias (3 Comst., 188) is an authority.*247for holding that the complaint in this case contains all needful averments. This doctrine is reaffirmed in Slack v. Heath (1 Abbotts' Pr. R., 334).

In Yorks v. Peck (14 Barb., 647) this court says: “In all cases of a joint note given upon a joint loan of money, or a joint liability of any kind, it will be presumed it was intended the note should be several as well as joint, and effect will be given to it according to that intention.” So in this case the undertaking will be presumed to be several; and in accordance with section 120 of the Code, the action may be against either of the parties to the instrument. .

Judgment for the plaintiff on the demurrer, with leave to defendant to answer.*

The terms imposed by the order entered were, service of answer in ten days, and payment of the costs in the cause, including the trial of the issue of law on the demurrer.

Case Details

Case Name: Morange v. Mudge
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 15, 1857
Citation: 6 Abb. Pr. 243
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.