Peerless Light Co. v. Gimbel Bros.
218 A.D. 864
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1926·Published
Opinion
— Order granting leave to serve amended answer affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Lazansky, J., dissents, and votes for a modification to provide for the service of the answer to the amended complaint as proposed, except as to the defense that plaintiff was not authorized to do business in the State of New York. (See Wood & Selick v. Ball, 190 N. Y. 217.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peerless Light Co. v. Gimbel Bros., 218 A.D. 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).
218 A.D. 864 (Peerless Light Co. v. Gimbel Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wood Selick v. . Ball
83 N.E. 31 (New York Court of Appeals, 1907)