Sauer v. Mayor of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by George S. Field and others, a copartnership known as the Union Bridge Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of blew York on the 13th day of June, 1896, denying their motion to be made defendants in the action. The action was brought to recover on four separately stated and enumerated causes of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal by George S. Field and others, a copartnership known as the Union Bridge Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of blew York on the 13th day of June, 1896, denying their motion to be made defendants in the action. The action was brought to recover on four separately stated and enumerated causes of action. The first three relate to damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s construction of a viaduct upon One Hundred and Fifty-fifth street, and the fourth is for damages due to defects…
1Opinion of the Court
O’Brien, J.:
It is conceded that the four causes of action could properly be united in one complaint under section 484 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the Union Bridge Company is only interested in two. If the latter had originally been made parties, the complaint would, therefore, be obnoxious to demurrer. It is claimed, however, that by reason of the notice served by the city the company will be bound by any judgment that may be entered in this action, and, therefore, that they should be admitted as parties defendant and allowed to litigate their liability as to two of the four…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Village of Port Jervis v. . First National B'k.New York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Mayor of New York v. BradyNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Mayor of New York v. BradyNew York Supreme Court · 1894