Obnet v. Ridder

100 Misc. 142
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1917·Published

Opinion

Greenbaum, J.

The defendants being sued individually and as executors were in effect sued as separate parties. The defendant served was therefore justified in answering as an individual and demurring as executor. Leonard v. Pierce, 182 N. Y. 431, 432; Keating v. Stevenson, 21 App. Div. 604. After the issue of law was noticed for trial this motion is made by plaintiff to permit him to change the title by omitting the words individually and as executors, etc.” The motion is really one to amend the complaint or to discontinue as against the executors. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief desired, but only upon payment [143] of taxable costs. Kerrigan v. Peters, 108 App. Div. 292, 294; Ward v. Terry & Tench Const. Co., 118 id. 80, 85; Audley v. Townsend, 131 id. 79, 80. Motion granted upon the terms indicated.

Motion granted.

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

Obnet v. Ridder, 100 Misc. 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1917).

100 Misc. 142 (Obnet v. Ridder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leonard v. . Pierce
75 N.E. 313 (New York Court of Appeals, 1905)
Keating v. Stevenson
21 A.D. 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Kerrigan v. Peters
108 A.D. 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)