Walter v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walter v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.

244 A.D. 751

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

DecidedApril 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 751 (Walter v. Henry L. Doherty & 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

Walter v. Henry L. Doherty & Co., 244 A.D. 751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to pay taxable costs reversed on the law and as a matter of discretion (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 283, 496), with leave to plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within ten days on payment of costs and the costs of this appeal. The plaintiffs were entitled to review the order by an appeal therefrom without being compelled to amend at once and pay costs, in default of which, judgment was to be entered against them. Had they accepted the terms of the order they would have lost the right to appeal. Hagarty, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, being of the opinion that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a canse of action.

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

Order granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to pay taxable costs reversed on the law and as a matter of discretion (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 283, 496), with leave to plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within ten days on payment of costs and the costs of this appeal. The plaintiffs were entitled to review the order by an appeal therefrom without being compelled to amend at once and pay costs, in default of which, judgment was to be entered against them. Had they accepted the terms of the order they would have lost the right to appeal. Hagarty, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, being of the opinion that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a canse of action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-v-henry-l-doherty-co-nyappdiv-1935.