Clason v. Kehoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clason v. Kehoe

63 N.Y.S. 300, 49 A.D. 631

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.Y.S. 300 (Clason v. Kehoe) 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

Clason v. Kehoe, 63 N.Y.S. 300, 49 A.D. 631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODWARD, J.

The learned trial court aptly says, "The question of the liability of the defendants, and the extent of such liability, has been formally determined by the late general term of this court, when the case was before it on exceptions taken on a former trial of the action (see Clason v. Kehoe, 87 Hun, 368, 34 N. Y. Supp. 431);” and we are of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. There can be no reasonable doubt that the trial court was acting within its discretionary powers, under the provisions of section 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in amending the complaint at the opening of the trial to meet the objection to its sufficiency. Ziegler v. Trenkman, 31 App. Div. 306, 52 N. Y. Supp. 613. This being done, and proof being introduced showing that a copy of the judgment of the general term, with notice of the entry thereof, was duly served upon the defendants’ attorney, in conformity with the requirements of section 1309 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the commencement of the action, we are unable to find in the appellants’ brief any reason in law why the judgment for the use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of the appeal from the circuit court to the general term should not be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

WOODWARD, J.

The learned trial court aptly says, "The question of the liability of the defendants, and the extent of such liability, has been formally determined by the late general term of this court, when the case was before it on exceptions taken on a former trial of the action (see Clason v. Kehoe, 87 Hun, 368, 34 N. Y. Supp. 431);” and we are of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. There can be no reasonable doubt that the trial court was acting within its discretionary powers, under the provisions of section 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in amending the complaint at the opening of the trial to meet the objection to its sufficiency. Ziegler v. Trenkman, 31 App. Div. 306, 52 N. Y. Supp. 613. This being done, and proof being introduced showing that a copy of the judgment of the general term, with notice of the entry thereof, was duly served upon the defendants’ attorney, in conformity with the requirements of section 1309 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the commencement of the action, we are unable to find in the appellants’ brief any reason in law why the judgment for the use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of the appeal from the circuit court to the general term should not be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.Y.S. 300, 49 A.D. 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clason-v-kehoe-nyappdiv-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack