Varriale v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varriale v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

66 N.Y.S. 559, 54 A.D. 633

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 66 N.Y.S. 559 (Varriale v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Varriale v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 66 N.Y.S. 559, 54 A.D. 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

INGRAHAM, J.

I think this motion should have been granted. The case is not different from that of O’Brien v. Railway Co., 27 App. Div. 1, 50 N. Y. Supp. 159. The plaintiff in the action has settled with the defendant, and there is no reason why the defendant should not be allowed to set up, by way of supplemental answer,, the fact of such settlement. The loches are not such as to justify the court in denying the motion. The case has not yet been reached for trial, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff’s attorneys have sustained any injuries in consequence of the delay in making this motion. The order appealed from should be reversed, and the defendant allowed to serve a supplemental answer, upon payment of all costs from the beginning of the action to the present time. All concur.

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

INGRAHAM, J.

I think this motion should have been granted. The case is not different from that of O’Brien v. Railway Co., 27 App. Div. 1, 50 N. Y. Supp. 159. The plaintiff in the action has settled with the defendant, and there is no reason why the defendant should not be allowed to set up, by way of supplemental answer,, the fact of such settlement. The loches are not such as to justify the court in denying the motion. The case has not yet been reached for trial, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff’s attorneys have sustained any injuries in consequence of the delay in making this motion. The order appealed from should be reversed, and the defendant allowed to serve a supplemental answer, upon payment of all costs from the beginning of the action to the present time. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.Y.S. 559, 54 A.D. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varriale-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappdiv-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack