Legal Opinion

Schwertfeger v. Bank of the Manhattan Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1946Published

1Opinion of the CourtFroessel, J.

The defendant moves for threefold relief: (a) pursuant to section 192 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike from the complaint herein the name of Ernest Schwertfeger and drop him as a party plaintiff on the ground that he is not a proper party and is neither an indispensable nor a conditionally necessary party to any of the causes of action alleged in the complaint; (b) to strike out, pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice certain paragraphs and parts of paragraphs in the complaint, and (c) to amend the title of the action by correcting…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Solomon v. LaGuardiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
  2. Erb v. Banco Di NapoliNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
  3. Day v. DayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  4. Bushwick-Decatur Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API