About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Joshua R. Standford, Plaintiff in Error, v. Clay Taylor U.S. 409 (1856)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0205 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1855. 409 Stanford v. Taylor. agents. The case of natural persons, and of other foreign cor- porations, is attended with other considerations, which might or might not distinguish it; upon this we give no opinion. This decision renders it unnecessary to consider the questions arising under the counts on the policy. It was objected that the judgment recovered in the commercial court was against the president, directors, and company of the Lafayette Insurance Company, while this action is against the Lafayette Insurance Company ; but the declaration describes the judgment correctly, and then avers that the judgment was recovered against the defendants by that other name. We must assume that this fact was proved; and the only question open here is, whether, if a mistake be made in the name of a defend- ant, and he fails to plead it in abatement, the judgment binds him, though called by & wrong name. Of this we have no doubt. Evidence that it was an erroneous name of the same person must, therefore, be admissible; otherwise, a mistake in the defendant's name, instead of being available only by a plea in abatement, would render a judgment wholly inoperative. In the case of the Medway Cotton Manufactory v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360, the plaintiffs, a corporation, declared on a promis- sory note made to Richardson, Metcalf, and Co., and averred that the maker promised the corporation by that name. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and assigned, in argu- ment, the same cause which has been relied on at the bar in this case, - that it was not competent to prove by parol evidence that the promisce of the note was the corporation, the name not being the same. The court held otherwise, and overruled the demur- rer. A similar decision was made in an action of debt on bond by the supreme court of New York, in the case of New York African Society v. Varick et al. 13 Johns. 38. See, also, Inhabitants, &c. v. String, 5 Halst. 323; and the authorities cited in the cases in New York and Massachusetts. The decision of the circuit court is affirmed. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented. JOSHUA R. STANFORD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. CLAY TAYLOR. Where an imperfect Spanish title to land in Missouri was confirmed by the commis- sioners, but the claim required a survey to ascertain its limits and boundaries, evi- dence cannot be received that the survey was erroneously made, by showing pos- VOL. XVIII. 35

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most