Clark v. Lichtenberg

City of New York Municipal Court

Clark v. Lichtenberg

7 N.Y.S. 900, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 935, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1371

DecidedOctober 31, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 7 N.Y.S. 900 (Clark v. Lichtenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Lichtenberg, 7 N.Y.S. 900, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 935, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1371 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court may, before trial, in furtherance of justice, permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint by abandoning the cause of action alleged, and including in the amended pleading one or more causes of action of a different class, subject only to the restriction that they all belong to the same-class, and are narrated by the summons. Brown v. Leigh, 49 N. Y. 78. The plaintiff herein obtained leave to withdraw the cause of action on what is-called the “first” undertaking on appeal, and to continue it on what is denominated the “second.” undertaking on appeal. Both causes of action were on contract; were given to secure the same judgment; and the parties thereto-were the same on each obligation. The court had power to grant the amendment; and, as the discretion was not abused, the order appealed from must be affirmed. As the terms imposed as a condition, $15, were light, the affirmance will be without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The court may, before trial, in furtherance of justice, permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint by abandoning the cause of action alleged, and including in the amended pleading one or more causes of action of a different class, subject only to the restriction that they all belong to the same-class, and are narrated by the summons. Brown v. Leigh, 49 N. Y. 78. The plaintiff herein obtained leave to withdraw the cause of action on what is-called the “first” undertaking on appeal, and to continue it on what is denominated the “second.” undertaking on appeal. Both causes of action were on contract; were given to secure the same judgment; and the parties thereto-were the same on each obligation. The court had power to grant the amendment; and, as the discretion was not abused, the order appealed from must be affirmed. As the terms imposed as a condition, $15, were light, the affirmance will be without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.Y.S. 900, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 935, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-lichtenberg-nynyccityct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack