Jackson ex dem. Abby v. Smith

New York Supreme Court

Jackson ex dem. Abby v. Smith

6 Cow. 39

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1826

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Cow. 39 (Jackson ex dem. Abby v. Smith) 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

Jackson ex dem. Abby v. Smith, 6 Cow. 39 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia.

The motion must be denied. The case cited from Caines has not been followed in practice. Without proof of the fact, we cannot see the necessity of the amendment ; nor even that there is any action pending. Great liberality prevails in allowing these amendments; but they are not merely of course. If so, why not enter a common rule ? Some reason for applying to the court should be [40]*40shown by affidavit, or otherwise. The question of amend-men|. js one 0f discretion, depending on various circum.stances. That the person from whom the demise is sought to ^as a subsisting claim to the premises, or some other substantial reason, is usually required to be shown; and there are several cases in which we have refused the amendment for want of this. (Jackson v. Richmond, 4 John. Rep. 483. Jackson v. Murray, 1 Cowen’s Rep, 156.) The motion must be denied.

Motion denied,

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

Curia.

The motion must be denied. The case cited from Caines has not been followed in practice. Without proof of the fact, we cannot see the necessity of the amendment ; nor even that there is any action pending. Great liberality prevails in allowing these amendments; but they are not merely of course. If so, why not enter a common rule ? Some reason for applying to the court should be [40]*40shown by affidavit, or otherwise. The question of amend-men|. js one 0f discretion, depending on various circum.stances. That the person from whom the demise is sought to ^as a subsisting claim to the premises, or some other substantial reason, is usually required to be shown; and there are several cases in which we have refused the amendment for want of this. (Jackson v. Richmond, 4 John. Rep. 483. Jackson v. Murray, 1 Cowen’s Rep, 156.) The motion must be denied.

Motion denied,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Cow. 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-abby-v-smith-nysupct-1826.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack