Granit v. Abramowitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Granit v. Abramowitz

112 N.Y.S. 1081

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 24, 1908·Published

Opinions

SEABURY, J.

It seems to me that the motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied. While the title of the action does not refer to the defendants as copartners, the complaint contains the allegation usual in an action against a copartnership. The decision- rendered in the action finds as a fact that the defendants were copartners. The articles of copartnership, which are before the court, established beyond all question that the defendants were copartners.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., concurs.

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

SEABURY, J.

It seems to me that the motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied. While the title of the action does not refer to the defendants as copartners, the complaint contains the allegation usual in an action against a copartnership. The decision- rendered in the action finds as a fact that the defendants were copartners. The articles of copartnership, which are before the court, established beyond all question that the defendants were copartners.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., concurs.

Granit v. Abramowitz, 112 N.Y.S. 1081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

112 N.Y.S. 1081 (Granit v. Abramowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related