TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

West v. Talman

West v. Talman, 29 F. Cas. 729 (1822)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
April 15, 1822
Citations
29 F. Cas. 7294 Wash. C. C. 200
Headnotes
Case No. 17,426. Suit for Land — Service ox Tenant. Judgment by default and habere facias pos- i sessionem executed, set aside: the service not ¡ being made on the tenant in possession, but on \ the landlord. ;
Summary
Motion to set aside the judgment by default • entered in this case and the habere facias pos- ¡ sessionem returned executed; upon the ground of irregularity in the service of the ejectment. It appeared by the affidavit of the service, that the declaration was served upon Mr. White, the landlord, who acknowledged the service, and promised to have it acknowledged by the tenant in possession, the defendant, which was not done. It appeared by the affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, that Mr. White, the landlord, had mortgaged the premises in question to one of the banks of this state, and that, after the institution of this suit, he conveyed the equity of redemption to one M. That White and M. were repeatedly informed that judgment would be entered by default unless an appearance was entered; and that frequent promises were made by White, that an appearance should be entered. That even after the judgment was entered, the plaintiff’s attorney offered to open it, upon an appearance being entered, but that nothing was done indicating a disposition to have the cause tried.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BY THE COURT.

The court can notice no other party defendant in this cause but Tai-man, the tenant in possession; who was liable for the costs at least, although his term expired before the trial could take place. It was therefore essential to the regularity of the proceedings, that the declaration should have been served on the tenant in possession, although White, the landlord, might, upon motion, have been admitted a defendant. But the acknowledgment of the service by White, who was not a defendant in the action, was altogether irregular, and could not bind the tenant in possession.

Judgment, and the habere facias possessio-nem set aside.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1842–1843: 118422026peak 1842 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cooper v. Mattheys6 F. Cas. 482 (1842)

Most recent

  1. Cooper v. Mattheys6 F. Cas. 482 (1842)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list