Kaulbach v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, the Knickerbocker Trust Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Spécial Term and entered. in the office of the clerk of the county of New York ón the 26th day of May, 1910, as resettled by-an order entered on the 27th day of May, 1910, denying the defendant’s motion to require plaintiffs to separately state and number the causes of action attempted to be set forth in the complaint, to strike out certain allegations of the…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant, the Knickerbocker Trust Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Spécial Term and entered. in the office of the clerk of the county of New York ón the 26th day of May, 1910, as resettled by-an order entered on the 27th day of May, 1910, denying the defendant’s motion to require plaintiffs to separately state and number the causes of action attempted to be set forth in the complaint, to strike out certain allegations of the complaint as irrelevant and to require that certain other allegations be made more definite and certain.
1Opinion of the Court
Laughlin, J.:
It is fairly to be inferred that the ;plaintiff, the Toledo, Michigan and Lake Huron Railroad is a corporation, but the complaint fails to allege wliat it is. If it be a corporation section 1775 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that that fact be alleged in the complaint,; and that it be stated whether it is a. domestic or a foreign corporation,. and if the latter, the State, country or government by or under whose laws it was created. The importance of requir*567ing a compliance with these statutory provisions is shown by section 1776 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dari-Delite, Inc. v. Priest & Baker, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1966