Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald

39 N.Y.S. 1125

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 12, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 39 N.Y.S. 1125 (Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald, 39 N.Y.S. 1125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that there was any error committed by the court below in allowing the defendants to serve the supplemental answer in question. In affirming this order, we do not, however, intend to intimate what the legal effect would be of the proof which may be offered to sustain the allegations contained in such supplemental answer. That depends so largely upon the nature of the evidence which-may be offered that any assumption arising-from our affirmance of the order, as to omr views upon the law, might be entirely erroneous. And, furthermore, if the order were reversed, and the motion to serve the supplemental ai>swer denied, there would be no opportunity fertile defendants to review our decision. The order should be affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that there was any error committed by the court below in allowing the defendants to serve the supplemental answer in question. In affirming this order, we do not, however, intend to intimate what the legal effect would be of the proof which may be offered to sustain the allegations contained in such supplemental answer. That depends so largely upon the nature of the evidence which-may be offered that any assumption arising-from our affirmance of the order, as to omr views upon the law, might be entirely erroneous. And, furthermore, if the order were reversed, and the motion to serve the supplemental ai>swer denied, there would be no opportunity fertile defendants to review our decision. The order should be affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 N.Y.S. 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirshfeld-v-fitzgerald-nyappdiv-1896.