Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett

135 Misc. 482, 238 N.Y.S. 344, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1034
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 31, 1929·Published

Opinion

Rodenbeck, J.

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

Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett, 135 Misc. 482, 238 N.Y.S. 344, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1034 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).

135 Misc. 482 (Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vetterlein v. Barnes
124 U.S. 169 (Supreme Court, 1888)
Jackson v. Tallmadge
158 N.E. 48 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
Phenix National Bank v. A. B. Cleveland Co.
11 N.Y.S. 873 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Rogers v. Rogers
3 Paige Ch. 379 (New York Court of Chancery, 1831)