James Trading Corp. v. Dixson

239 A.D. 762
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D. 762 (James Trading Corp. v. Dixson) 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
James Trading Corp. v. Dixson, 239 A.D. 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, [763]*763and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The facts which defendant presents as a basis for his application to join third persons as parties to this action, under subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act, are insufficient. They do not establish that such persons are or will be liable to defendant wholly or in part for the claim made against him in the action. The two transactions are entirely separate. While defendant may have a separate right of action against the parties whom he seeks to join in this action for the moneys which he claims he disbursed for them, the parties are in no sense answerable to him for the claim made by plaintiff against him in the present action. (Nichols v. Clark, MacMullen & Riley, Inc., 261 N. Y. 118.) Moreover, the granting of the order on the facts alleged was unauthorized. Removal of actions to the Supreme Court from other courts is authorized by the Civil Practice Act in certain specified instances. (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 67, 73, 97, 110, 110-a and 190.) None of these provisions cover eases of this sort. All concur.

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

Related

Gilbert v. Mehrtens
159 Misc. 702 (New York Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D. 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-trading-corp-v-dixson-nyappdiv-1933.