Astoria Silk Works v. Plymouth Rubber Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, the Plymouth Rubber 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 Hew York on the 10th day of April, 1908, denying the defendant’s .motion to require the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint in which the causes of action shall be separately stated and numbered.
1Opinion of the Court
Laughlin, J.:
The decision of a motion to require the plaintiff to separately state and number causes of action does not involve the sufficiency of the allegations with respect to any cause of action attempted to. be set forth. The question presented for decision is whether the pleader has attempted to set forth more than one cause of action. *19If lie has, then the express provisions of section 483 of the Gode of Civil Procedure and the decisions of the courts thereunder require that the motion shall be granted. (Powers v. Sherin, 89 App. Div. 37; Stern v. Marcuse, 119 id. 478.)
This complaint…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powers v. SherinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
3Cited by8 opinions
- Callas v. Whisper, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1950
- 137 East 66th Street, Inc. v. LawrenceNew York Supreme Court · 1922
- In re Mercedes Import Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908
- Mitchell Gardens No. 3 Co-Operative Corp. v. Third B N Associates, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1957
- Huguley v. GardnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.