Booth v. A. Feldman Const. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Booth v. A. Feldman Const. Co.

139 N.Y.S. 315

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 139 N.Y.S. 315 (Booth v. A. Feldman Const. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Booth v. A. Feldman Const. Co., 139 N.Y.S. 315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action to recover the value of services rendered was commenced by the service of the summons upon one Annie Feldman, the sole defendant named therein. On the trial it appeared •that the plaintiff had been employed by Mrs. Feldman, but that she was acting as agent for the Feldman Construction Company, where[316]*316upon the court ordered the summons to be amended by naming that company as defendant. There was no evidence that Mrs. Feldman was an officer of the company, or had any authority to consent to1 such amendment. The trial proceeded, and resulted in á judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Feldman Construction Company, which had not been served, nor had it appeared in the action. Subsequently, on plaintiff’s motion, without notice, an order was entered changing the name of the defendant so substituted to A. Feldman Construction Company.

The defendant corporation never having been served or brought into court in any manner, the judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This action to recover the value of services rendered was commenced by the service of the summons upon one Annie Feldman, the sole defendant named therein. On the trial it appeared •that the plaintiff had been employed by Mrs. Feldman, but that she was acting as agent for the Feldman Construction Company, where[316]*316upon the court ordered the summons to be amended by naming that company as defendant. There was no evidence that Mrs. Feldman was an officer of the company, or had any authority to consent to1 such amendment. The trial proceeded, and resulted in á judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Feldman Construction Company, which had not been served, nor had it appeared in the action. Subsequently, on plaintiff’s motion, without notice, an order was entered changing the name of the defendant so substituted to A. Feldman Construction Company.

The defendant corporation never having been served or brought into court in any manner, the judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.Y.S. 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-a-feldman-const-co-nyappterm-1913.