Holm v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holm v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc.

252 A.D. 778, 299 N.Y.S. 154, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1937·Published

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

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.

Holm v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 252 A.D. 778, 299 N.Y.S. 154, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

252 A.D. 778 (Holm v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related