William Johnson

Name: Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria/Dissent Johnson — Dissent
Author: William Johnson

Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

Summary

“Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria/Dissent Johnson — Dissent”, is a work by William Johnson. It explores elements such as nolle prosequi, nolle and defendants.

Quotes from Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria… (William Johnson)

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ And I am yet to learn, that, in a joint action in contract against several, a nolle prosequi as to the whole action, against one, is not a bar as to him.
The cases are very few in the Books, in which the effects of a nolle prosequi, in such a case, has been tried by the only sufficient test-a plea in bar, to a suit upon the same contract. But as far as they have gone, they maintain the bar.
If a bar, in cases in which the suit is against a single defendant, there can be no reason assigned why it should not be a bar as against one of the several defendants. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ It is true, that, in general, the non-joinder of co-obligors must be pleaded in abatement; but it would be oppressive and inconsistent to apply this rule to a case, in which it was impossible to plead in abatement, and that was precisely this case; since the discharge of the principal from the action, was produced by the act of the plaintiff, after judgment, at a time when it was impossible, by any form of pleadings, for the defendants to avail themselves of this right. But this case comes within an exception to the general rule on the subject of pleas in abatement ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ Now, this judgment is either a bar to a future suit against the principal, or it is not. If a bar, then the record exhibits the inconsistent case of four being made liable for one, who was not liable himself. And if it is not a bar, then, by possibility, it may be established by the verdict of a future jury, that the co-obligor, for whose misfeasance, alone, these defendants have had judgment against them, had, in fact, committed no misfeasance. A rule of practice, that may lead to such consequences, cannot rest upon public convenience. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ It cannot be questioned, that in a joint contract by five, where all remain equally bound-all in life, and all within reach of the process; more especially, where they have been all actually arrested, the plaintiff must recover against all, or none. This is that case; and yet the plaintiff is allowed here to take judgment against four, and discharge the fifth, the principal, by nolle prosequi, after judgment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ They may, also, without prejudice to their co-defendants, be discharged by nolle prosequi; but even as to them, it seems the precedents imposed a restriction; for, it is not permitted, if they have blended their fate with that of their co-defendants, by joining in their pleas. They have then waived their privilege. If their pleas impart no waiver of their privilege, the right of the plaintiff to his nolle prosequi, as to them, is conceded; because the relations of the parties are not altered, nor their rights in any way prejudiced. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ Surely the precedents for entering the nolle prosequi after judgment in actions of trespass, against some defendants, and going on to levy satisfaction from the rest, can afford no precedent here; since it is, in the one case, what the law enjoins ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ If this plaintiff ever had a right to proceed against these four defendants, in originating this suit, I should have felt no doubt. That is the case in trespass, that is the case where one defendant is bankrupt, or an infant, or pleads ne unques executor. 1 Will. 89. 3 Espin. R. 76. There is a modern book of practice of great respectability, (I mean Sellon, title, Nolle Prosequi,) in which this doctrine is summed up to my entire satisfaction. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Johnson, Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria…

“ The case in Maul & Selwyn, which was supposed to have overruled the previous decisions, is in perfect accordance with them; for, although the defendant had pleaded non assumpsit, he had also pleaded his discharge as a bankrupt. ”

William Johnson

Summary

Quotes from Minor v. The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria… (William Johnson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature