Du Mond v. American Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Du Mond v. American Surety Co.

271 A.D.2d 767

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 767 (Du Mond v. American Surety Co.) 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

Du Mond v. American Surety Co., 271 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, at the Albany County Special Term, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to bring in the Sodus Creamery Corporation as a party defendant. The action is for a money judgment and upon bonds of the defendant guaranteeing payment to producers delivering milk to the Sodus Co-operative Creamery Company. Defendant-appellant claims that the third party it seeks to bring in will be liable over to it in the event plaintiff is successful. The order appealed from is a discretionary one. To grant appellant’s motion would mean an inevitable delay insofar as the plaintiff’s case is concerned. Since the action is for a money judgment we are not disposed to interfere with the Special Term’s discretion. Order affirmed, with $25 costs. All concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, at the Albany County Special Term, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to bring in the Sodus Creamery Corporation as a party defendant. The action is for a money judgment and upon bonds of the defendant guaranteeing payment to producers delivering milk to the Sodus Co-operative Creamery Company. Defendant-appellant claims that the third party it seeks to bring in will be liable over to it in the event plaintiff is successful. The order appealed from is a discretionary one. To grant appellant’s motion would mean an inevitable delay insofar as the plaintiff’s case is concerned. Since the action is for a money judgment we are not disposed to interfere with the Special Term’s discretion. Order affirmed, with $25 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/du-mond-v-american-surety-co-nyappdiv-1946.