Heckemann v. Young

New York Supreme Court

Heckemann v. Young

18 Abb. N. Cas. 196

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 Abb. N. Cas. 196 (Heckemann v. Young) 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.

Bluebook

Heckemann v. Young, 18 Abb. N. Cas. 196 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

I think the amendment moved for should be granted. The cases cited by the counsel for the defendant, from the Court of Appeals reports, were cases in which the action was brought by one party, and the amendment sought to be made was the insertion of the name of an entirely different party, both parties being living persons. In this case the affidavits show that Pauline Heckemann, who was the party to whom it is alleged the indebtedness of the defendants was incurred, had been carrying on business in Hamburg for many years past under the name of her deceased husband, Johanes Heckemann. She was the party in whose name the action was intended to be brought, and for whose benefit the action actually (was brought. If the amendment is granted, the name of the person in whose behalf the action was brought will be proper1 • described.

I shall therefore grant the motion upon condition that tL. plaintiff pay the costs before notice of trial, and costs of motion.

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

Lawrence, J.

I think the amendment moved for should be granted. The cases cited by the counsel for the defendant, from the Court of Appeals reports, were cases in which the action was brought by one party, and the amendment sought to be made was the insertion of the name of an entirely different party, both parties being living persons. In this case the affidavits show that Pauline Heckemann, who was the party to whom it is alleged the indebtedness of the defendants was incurred, had been carrying on business in Hamburg for many years past under the name of her deceased husband, Johanes Heckemann. She was the party in whose name the action was intended to be brought, and for whose benefit the action actually (was brought. If the amendment is granted, the name of the person in whose behalf the action was brought will be proper1 • described.

I shall therefore grant the motion upon condition that tL. plaintiff pay the costs before notice of trial, and costs of motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Abb. N. Cas. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heckemann-v-young-nysupct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack