Case ID: johns_11/html/0199-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Youle against Graham, Wilson, and Henry.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1814.
    Where a caus¿ had been re* moved to this court by kabeas corpus, the plaintiff must enter a rule for the defendant to appear in 20 days, or that a procedendo is* sue, and serve a notice there» of on the de» fendant, be» fore he can be entitled to move for a pro* cedendo, for want of bail in this court-Where the ac« tion is against two defendants in the court "below, and one only is taken, and removes the cause by habeas corpusp whether he must put in bail in this court,for both, defend» ants or riot, quests*
    
    F. W. RADCLIFF, for the plaintiff, moved for a writ of procedendo in this cause to the mayor’s court of the city of NenYork.
    
    The suit was originally commenced in the mayor’s court, and Henry, one of the defendants, only was taken. The plaintiff issued another writ against Graham and Wilson, to answer together with Henry, on which Graham only was taken. Graham appeared by attorney, and Henry in proper person. A habeas corpus cum causa, See. as to the defendants, Graham and Henry, was taken out, to remove the cause to this court, returnable at the last term. On the 24th January last, the plaintiff’s attorney demanded, in writing, of the attorney of Graham and Henry, to file special bail for all the defendants, within twenty days, so that the plaintiff might proceed to declare against them in this court. It did not appear that any rule had been entered by the plaintiff’s attorney for the defendants to appear, or that a procedendo issue; and no bail had been put in by the defendants.
    
      Slosson objected,
    that by the 10th rule of October term, 1796, the plaintiff, before he could be entitled to a procedendo, must enter a rule that the defendants appear within twenty days, and make affidavit of the service of notice of such rule on the defendants.
    
      Radcliff, in reply,
    said the plaintiff could not enter such a rule, as only two of the defendants were in this court. In Fry v. Careys
      
       where an action ivas brought in the sheriff’s court against two partners, and one of them brought a habeas corpus and put in bail for himself only, the court of K. B. granted a procedendo, for, otherwise, the plaintiff would be unable to proceed in either court.
    
      
      
        1 Stra. 527. 2 Sell. Prac. 381.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, to entitle himself to a procedendo, should have proceeded according to the rules of the court, to compel an appearance in this court. How that appearance is to be effected, it is not necessary now to decide. As the plaintiff has not entered any rule for an appearance, the motion must be denied.

Motion denied.