Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co.

143 A.D. 482, 127 N.Y.S. 1094, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 852

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D. 482 (Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co.) 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

Hoag v. South Dover Marble Co., 143 A.D. 482, 127 N.Y.S. 1094, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The case has been before the court since 1906. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed in 1908 (192 N. Y. 412; 193 id. 646), and since that time no move has been made. The judgment of reversal held in effect that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the pleadings then stood, and no motion has been made to amend the pleadings. Junior issues have been placed upon the calendar, tried and disposed of since the reversal, and the only excuse for delay is that made by the plaintiff, that she and her mother and other members of the family have been ill. This clearly did not prevent her attorney from taking the necessary steps to amend the complaint, nor did it prevent making an application to read the plaintiff’s testimony on a former trial, or to take her testimony at her own home. The learned court below has granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and we are of the opinion that there is no reason for interfering with the discretion thus exercised.

[483]*483The order appealed from should be affirmed,- with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Hirsohberg, Bueb, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Dutchess county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam :

The case has been before the court since 1906. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed in 1908 (192 N. Y. 412; 193 id. 646), and since that time no move has been made. The judgment of reversal held in effect that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the pleadings then stood, and no motion has been made to amend the pleadings. Junior issues have been placed upon the calendar, tried and disposed of since the reversal, and the only excuse for delay is that made by the plaintiff, that she and her mother and other members of the family have been ill. This clearly did not prevent her attorney from taking the necessary steps to amend the complaint, nor did it prevent making an application to read the plaintiff’s testimony on a former trial, or to take her testimony at her own home. The learned court below has granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and we are of the opinion that there is no reason for interfering with the discretion thus exercised.

[483]*483The order appealed from should be affirmed,- with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Hirsohberg, Bueb, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Dutchess county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D. 482, 127 N.Y.S. 1094, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoag-v-south-dover-marble-co-nyappdiv-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack