From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hulbert Brothers Co. v. Hohman

Supreme Court, Onondaga Special Term
Jan 1, 1898
22 Misc. 248 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1898)

Summary

In Hulbert Brothers Co. v. Hohman (22 Misc. 248) the court, per HISCOCK, J. (at p. 249), said: "It seems that at the time this action was commenced the above-named Forster had been appointed receiver of Hulbert Brothers Company and, therefore, the cause of action was vested in him.

Summary of this case from Van der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.

Opinion

January, 1898.

Irving G. Hubbs, for motion.

J.R. Shea, opposed.


It seems that at the time this action was commenced the above-named Forster had been appointed receiver of Hulbert Brothers Company and, therefore, the cause of action was vested in him. Through inadvertence the summons and complaint were entitled in the name of the company as plaintiff, and this application is now made to change the name of the plaintiff accordingly.

I think it is within the power of the court to grant the application and that the amendment should be allowed. Code, § 723; Heckemann v. Young, 18 Abb. N.C. 196; Kaplan v. N.Y. Biscuit Co., 5 A.D. 60.

As was suggested in Dean v. Gilbert, 92 Hun, 427, the amendment may be regarded almost as a correction of the name of the plaintiff rather than the substitution of an entirely distinct and different party from that named and referred to in the allegations of the complaint.

The suggestion made in opposition to the motion that it does not sufficiently appear that the receiver is a party to this application or represented thereon by plaintiff's counsel is answered by the fact amongst others that part of the moving papers are the proposed amended summons and complaint duly verified by Mr. Hubbs as attorney for the receiver and in which he specifically states that he is such attorney.

The motion is, therefore, granted, with $10 costs to abide event.

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide event.


Summaries of

Hulbert Brothers Co. v. Hohman

Supreme Court, Onondaga Special Term
Jan 1, 1898
22 Misc. 248 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1898)

In Hulbert Brothers Co. v. Hohman (22 Misc. 248) the court, per HISCOCK, J. (at p. 249), said: "It seems that at the time this action was commenced the above-named Forster had been appointed receiver of Hulbert Brothers Company and, therefore, the cause of action was vested in him.

Summary of this case from Van der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.
Case details for

Hulbert Brothers Co. v. Hohman

Case Details

Full title:HULBERT BROTHERS CO., Plaintiff, v . JOHN T. HOHMAN, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Onondaga Special Term

Date published: Jan 1, 1898

Citations

22 Misc. 248 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1898)
49 N.Y.S. 633

Citing Cases

Van der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.

The addition of the coplaintiffs in this action was in reality only a change in the description of the…

Van Tuyl v. New York Real Estate Security Co.

We think, also, that plaintiff's motion to amend the supplemental summons and amended complaint should have…