Skinner v. White

New York Supreme Court

Skinner v. White

17 N.Y.S. 657, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 743, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 436

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 657 (Skinner v. White) 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

Skinner v. White, 17 N.Y.S. 657, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 743, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 436 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

We think in this case the court at special term not only had the power to grant the order appealed from, but that it was a wise exercise of the power to grant the amendment, and that the terms were just and proper. It is not improbable that if the plaintiff had requested that he be allowed to discontinue, as a part of the terms for allowing the amendment, he might have been permitted to do so, but it does not appear that any such request was made, and it is now too late to made that objection; besides, we think the terms were severe enough to meet the demands of justice in the premises. It was not too late for the defendant to make the motion to amend her answer, as Code, § 723, provides that the court may upon the trial, or at any stage of the action, “* * * amend any process or pleading. ” To deny the power of the court to make such an amendment challenges its power to do justice.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Pratt, J.

We think in this case the court at special term not only had the power to grant the order appealed from, but that it was a wise exercise of the power to grant the amendment, and that the terms were just and proper. It is not improbable that if the plaintiff had requested that he be allowed to discontinue, as a part of the terms for allowing the amendment, he might have been permitted to do so, but it does not appear that any such request was made, and it is now too late to made that objection; besides, we think the terms were severe enough to meet the demands of justice in the premises. It was not too late for the defendant to make the motion to amend her answer, as Code, § 723, provides that the court may upon the trial, or at any stage of the action, “* * * amend any process or pleading. ” To deny the power of the court to make such an amendment challenges its power to do justice.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 657, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 743, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-white-nysupct-1892.