Property · MBE-tested

Jackson, ex dem. Smith, against Stiles, Combs & Garrison, tenants

3 Cow. 356·New York Supreme Court·1824·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Jackson, ex dem. Smith, against Stiles, Combs & Garrison, tenants. ■ Where 2 defendants are sued jointly in ejectment, they have no right to enter into separate consent rules in the name of each alone. A declaration having been served on Combs Garrison* the notice from the casual ejector being directed to them joint» ly, they separately retained an attorney to appear, and he tendered separate consent rules td the attorney for the plaintiffj which mentioned one defendant only as being made defendant, without stating that he was impleaded with the other. The plaintiff’s attorney refused to accept such a consent rule, and took a default, which J. Maynard, now moved to set aside for irregularity. A. Gibbs, contfa. [MAJORITY — Curia.] Curia. The plaintiff is regular. The consent rule should have been in the name of both defendánts. Motion denied»