Carroll v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carroll v. Blum

159 N.Y.S. 1104

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 14, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 1104 (Carroll v. Blum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Blum, 159 N.Y.S. 1104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has heretofore twice recovered judgments against the defendant, both of which have been reversed in this court. On the last appeal patent defects were pointed out in the complaint, the same having been indicated by defendant’s counsel at the trial below by appropriate motions and exceptions to rulings. It appears, also, that substantially the same points had been urged by defendant’s counsel at the first trial. Even apart from these considerations, it is quite evident that the terms imposed are insufficient. The order appealed from is therefore modified by permitting the amendment upon payment to defendant of one full bill of costs, including the costs of the prior appeal, $10 motion^ costs, and $10_ costs and disbursements of this appeal, within six days from service of notice of the entry of this order upon plaintiff’s counsel, witli leave to defendant to answer within six days after service of the amended complaint; otherwise, the motion is denied, with $10 costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has heretofore twice recovered judgments against the defendant, both of which have been reversed in this court. On the last appeal patent defects were pointed out in the complaint, the same having been indicated by defendant’s counsel at the trial below by appropriate motions and exceptions to rulings. It appears, also, that substantially the same points had been urged by defendant’s counsel at the first trial. Even apart from these considerations, it is quite evident that the terms imposed are insufficient. The order appealed from is therefore modified by permitting the amendment upon payment to defendant of one full bill of costs, including the costs of the prior appeal, $10 motion^ costs, and $10_ costs and disbursements of this appeal, within six days from service of notice of the entry of this order upon plaintiff’s counsel, witli leave to defendant to answer within six days after service of the amended complaint; otherwise, the motion is denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-blum-nyappdiv-1916.