East River Bank v. Cutting

1 Bosw. 636
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided December 3, 1857·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Bosworth, J.

There has been no transfer - of interest-pending the action. By taking judgment against Cutting,-the action was severed, and as to Cutting, determined by the judgment. There was,-then, no action pending as against Caldwell, Itcould only be commenced by the service of the summons upon. him. Before it was so commenced the cause of action was transferred to the Receiver. The motion cannot be granted under § .121 of the Code. If the action could he brought in the name of the present plaintiff, by serving the summons on Caldwell, when service of it was made on him, a recovery can be had -in the name of the present plaintiff. If it could not, then, granting the motion, would be substituting, after issue joined, a person, as plaintiff, who had a right to sue, for one who had no right to sue. Motion denied; with $7 costs to abide event.

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

East River Bank v. Cutting, 1 Bosw. 636 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

1 Bosw. 636 (East River Bank v. Cutting) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weidman v. Sibley
16 A.D. 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Brumagim v. Chew
19 N.J. Eq. 130 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1868)