Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Klittner

New York Supreme Court

Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Klittner

16 N.Y.S. 828, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 157, 62 Hun 620, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2269

DecidedDecember 14, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.Y.S. 828 (Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Klittner) 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

Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Klittner, 16 N.Y.S. 828, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 157, 62 Hun 620, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2269 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

The complaint was consistent with the facts, and recited the assignment of the claim by the copartnership to the new corporation formed to continue its business. The issuance of the summons in the name of the copartnership instead of the corporation was a manifest error, which the court had power to amend. It was an error in the name, which was properly corrected on motion. Order affirmed", with $10 costs and disbursements.

All concur.

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

Pratt, J.

The complaint was consistent with the facts, and recited the assignment of the claim by the copartnership to the new corporation formed to continue its business. The issuance of the summons in the name of the copartnership instead of the corporation was a manifest error, which the court had power to amend. It was an error in the name, which was properly corrected on motion. Order affirmed", with $10 costs and disbursements.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y.S. 828, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 157, 62 Hun 620, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurber-whyland-co-v-klittner-nysupct-1891.