Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett
This text of 135 Misc. 482 (Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The proposed defendants are not necessary parties. All the bondholders are represented by the trustee. (Jackson v. Tallmadge, 246 N. Y. 133; Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 [483]*483U. S. 169; Phœnix Nat. Bk. v. Cleveland Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 873; Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 379.) The 31st clause of the complaint is authorized. (Real Prop. Law, § 501, added by Laws of 1920, chap. 930, as amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 565.) If an adverse claim is set up, an application for a bill of particulars may be applied for. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 247.)
Motions denied, with ten dollars costs to‘abide event.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
135 Misc. 482, 238 N.Y.S. 344, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-state-pickling-co-v-bennett-nysupct-1929.