Sturges v. Newcombe

The Superior Court of New York City

Sturges v. Newcombe

67 N.Y. St. Rep. 301

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 6, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 301 (Sturges v. Newcombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sturges v. Newcombe, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 301 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was not a valid objection to the order appealed from, made at special term, that it permitted an amendment that substituted a cause of action different from the one averred in the complaint Deyo v. Morss, 144 N. Y. 216; 63 St Rep. 80. The peculiarities of the litigation placed it within the discretion of the court to determine whether or not there were loches on the part of the plaintiff which should defeat his application to amend.

Order affirmed, with ten dollar costs, and disbursements to be taxed.

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

Per Curiam.

It was not a valid objection to the order appealed from, made at special term, that it permitted an amendment that substituted a cause of action different from the one averred in the complaint Deyo v. Morss, 144 N. Y. 216; 63 St Rep. 80. The peculiarities of the litigation placed it within the discretion of the court to determine whether or not there were loches on the part of the plaintiff which should defeat his application to amend.

Order affirmed, with ten dollar costs, and disbursements to be taxed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 N.Y. St. Rep. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturges-v-newcombe-nysuperctnyc-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack