Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Conn. 424

Butts v. Francis

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 15, 1822

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1822-07-15

IN ERROR. This was an action against Johnson Butts and Loren Butts, on a promissory note, given by them jointly.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2008

7 state decisions

201822183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hosmer, Ch. J.

¶1In an action on joint contract, service must be made on all the persons named in the writ, or it is abateable. If there are two defendants, an attested copy, when the notice is not by a personal summons, must be left with each of them, or at the place or places of their usual abode.

¶2They may jointly plead a defect of service in abatement; because it is a defence, in which they have a joint interest. The cases of joint trespassers and of a prosecution qui tam for an assault, rest on a different principle. It is at the option of the plaintiff to institute his suit jointly or severally; and if one is not legally notified, the other has no cause of complaint. The case of Hallam & al. v Mumford, 1 Root 58., in which it was adjudged, that one defendant cannot take advantage of the other’s minority, to avoid a note, proceeded on the principle, that the person within age, has a right to waive his privilege of infancy; which is entirely incompatible with a supposed right in the co-promiser, to insist upon it, by separate plea of abatement.

¶3With respect to, the sheriff’s return, it was prima facie evidence of the facts contained in it, but not conclusive; and it only increased the weight of testimony, requisite to support the defendant’s plea.

The other Judges were of the same opinion.

¶4Judgment reversed.

/4/conn/424 · .json · Public domain