Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 How. Pr. 271

Garrison v. Garrison

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1884

New York Supreme Court · decided 1884-06-15

<p>Code of Civil Procedure, sections 738, 1932, 1278— Offer of judgment by one of several joint debtor's or partners will not bind the others.</p> <p>There is no statutory authority allowing one joint debtor or partner to make an offer of judgment in behalf of his joint debtor or copartner. “ The like offer," as used in section 738, of Code of Civil Procedure, means that judgment must be taken against him who makes the offer if separate judgment can be taken.</p> <p>Section 1932 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing judgments to be entered in form against both joint debtors when only one is served, does not relate to judgments entered upon offers.</p>

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1893

5 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Landon, J.

¶1Section 738, Code of Civil Procedure, provides that the defendant may before trial serve upon the plaintiff’s attorney a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against him.

¶2If there are two or more defendants and the action can be severed, a like offer may be made by one or more defendants against whom a separate judgment may be taken. What is “the like offer?” Clearly, that judgment may be taken against him who makes the offer, if separate judgment can be taken. There is no statutory authority allowing one joint debtor or partner to make an offer in behalf of his joint debtor or copartner.

¶3Section 1932, allowing judgment to be entered in form against both joint debtors when only one is served, does not relate to judgments entered upon offers. Section 1278 relates to confessions of judgment, not to offers. The common-law power of one copartner to act as the agent of the firm is limited to the ordinary business -of the firm (Mabbett agt. *273White, 12 N. Y., 442). The offer made in this case involves a question of statutory practice. The statute does not allow it.

¶4The judgments entered against both defendants must therefore be vacated and the same orders in the other cases, with costs (See Tripp agt. Sanders, 59 How., 379; Burney agt. Le Gal, 19 Barb., 592; Bredenbecker agt. Mason, 16 How., 203; Everson agt. Gehrman et al., 10 How., 301).

/67/howpr/271 · .json · Public domain