Holm v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc.
This text of 252 A.D. 778 (Holm v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate a verdict and all previous proceedings in the action, on the ground that the plaintiff was an infant at the time of the commencement of the action and that no guardian ad litem, was ever appointed, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The fact that the infant attained his majority prior to the trial cured the alleged irregularity. ( Kapulsky v. Steiner, 250 App. Div. 782; Henderson v. Henderson, 247 N. Y. 428; Arnold v. Sandford, 14 Johns. 417; 2 Carmody’s New York Practice, p. 1350.) Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
252 A.D. 778, 299 N.Y.S. 154, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holm-v-eastern-greyhound-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1937.