Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Wyckoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Wyckoff

81 A.D. 294, 81 N.Y.S. 49

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D. 294 (Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Wyckoff) 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

Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Wyckoff, 81 A.D. 294, 81 N.Y.S. 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Chase, J.:

On the facts in this case we. would reverse the order made at the Special Term and grant the appellant’s application if it had not been held that this court had no power to make such an order. The Court of Appeals has held that' in an action at law . a plaintiff •cannot be compelled to bring in any other parties than those he has ■chosen. (Chapman v. Forbes, 123 N. Y. 532; Bauer v. Dewey, 166 id. 402.) The learned counsel for the appellant does not deny that this is an action at law, but contends that the cases cited should mot be deemed controlling except where the merits of the controversy require that no further parties should be brought into the ^action. Such a limitation would be an effectual destruction of the rule itself. If said rule adopted by the Court of Appeals is to be modified and limited in its application, such modification and limitation should be stated by that court.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

■Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. •

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

Chase, J.:

On the facts in this case we. would reverse the order made at the Special Term and grant the appellant’s application if it had not been held that this court had no power to make such an order. The Court of Appeals has held that' in an action at law . a plaintiff •cannot be compelled to bring in any other parties than those he has ■chosen. (Chapman v. Forbes, 123 N. Y. 532; Bauer v. Dewey, 166 id. 402.) The learned counsel for the appellant does not deny that this is an action at law, but contends that the cases cited should mot be deemed controlling except where the merits of the controversy require that no further parties should be brought into the ^action. Such a limitation would be an effectual destruction of the rule itself. If said rule adopted by the Court of Appeals is to be modified and limited in its application, such modification and limitation should be stated by that court.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

■Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D. 294, 81 N.Y.S. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westinghouse-church-kerr-co-v-wyckoff-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack