Charles S. Sofield and Alexander Frazer Co. v. W. Beckers Aniline and Chemical Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charles S. Sofield and Alexander Frazer Co. v. W. Beckers Aniline and Chemical Works, Inc.

192 A.D. 410, 182 N.Y.S. 691, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7487

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

DecidedJune 11, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D. 410 (Charles S. Sofield and Alexander Frazer Co. v. W. Beckers Aniline and Chemical Works, Inc.) 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

Charles S. Sofield and Alexander Frazer Co. v. W. Beckers Aniline and Chemical Works, Inc., 192 A.D. 410, 182 N.Y.S. 691, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We think the learned trial justice erred in allowing the amendment bringing in the Alexander Frazer Company as a party plaintiff. The amendment was made after the action had been on trial for several days upon the issues presented by the pleadings, between the original plaintiff Sofield, and the defendant appellant. At the time the application to amend was made and granted over defendant’s objection and exception, there was no evidence before the court warranting such amendment. The application was without notice or proof of any kind justifying such an amendment. It brought in a new party plaintiff and a changed theory of ownership of the oysters which were the subject of the litigation. Such an amendment cannot be granted under the Code of Civil Procedure, section 723, during the course of the trial over objection duly made. So far as the original parties were concerned, it introduced a radically different action from the one originally commenced. (Doyle v. Carney, 190 N. Y. 386; Van Cott v. Prentice, 104 id. 45; Licausi v. Ashworth, 78 App. Div. 486; Johnson v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 133 id. 807.) The proposed amendment to the complaint was not formulated, or stated in any definite manner, and no amendment of the answer was allowed to meet the new situation. Under the testimony of the witness Frazer, examined after the amendment had been allowed, there is considerable doubt whether there was any ownership of the oysters by the original plaintiff Sofield justifying an award of damages to him.

The judgment and orders should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.

Judgment and orders reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide jihe event.

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

Per Curiam:

We think the learned trial justice erred in allowing the amendment bringing in the Alexander Frazer Company as a party plaintiff. The amendment was made after the action had been on trial for several days upon the issues presented by the pleadings, between the original plaintiff Sofield, and the defendant appellant. At the time the application to amend was made and granted over defendant’s objection and exception, there was no evidence before the court warranting such amendment. The application was without notice or proof of any kind justifying such an amendment. It brought in a new party plaintiff and a changed theory of ownership of the oysters which were the subject of the litigation. Such an amendment cannot be granted under the Code of Civil Procedure, section 723, during the course of the trial over objection duly made. So far as the original parties were concerned, it introduced a radically different action from the one originally commenced. (Doyle v. Carney, 190 N. Y. 386; Van Cott v. Prentice, 104 id. 45; Licausi v. Ashworth, 78 App. Div. 486; Johnson v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 133 id. 807.) The proposed amendment to the complaint was not formulated, or stated in any definite manner, and no amendment of the answer was allowed to meet the new situation. Under the testimony of the witness Frazer, examined after the amendment had been allowed, there is considerable doubt whether there was any ownership of the oysters by the original plaintiff Sofield justifying an award of damages to him.

The judgment and orders should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.

Judgment and orders reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide jihe event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D. 410, 182 N.Y.S. 691, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-s-sofield-and-alexander-frazer-co-v-w-beckers-aniline-and-nyappdiv-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack