Penny v. Van Cleef

1 Hall 165
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided October 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs are entitled to the effect of their motion, as a matter of course: an application to amend never being refused where it does not operate as a surprise upon the defendant, nor subject him to injury. The plaintiffs, however, must pay the costs of the motion; and the defendant has leave to withdraw his pleas, and plead again de novo. He cannot be subjected to any injury by the amendments, because he will have every opportunity to shape his defence according to the exigency of the case.

Motion granted on payment of costs.

[C. C. King, atty. for the plffs. G. W. Strong, atty. for the deft.]

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

Penny v. Van Cleef, 1 Hall 165 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

1 Hall 165 (Penny v. Van Cleef) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler v. Thompson
2 Fla. 9 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1848)
Barstow v. Randall
5 Hill & Den. 556 (New York Supreme Court, 1843)
Bogart v. M'Donald
2 Johns. Cas. 219 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)