Stanton v. . King
New York Court of Appeals
About the 29th January, 1870, the plaintiff brought his action against defendants Loveridge and Harman us B. Duryea, describing them to be executors and trustees of the will of one Bowno, to recover the sum of $15,000 for services rendered to them by the plaintiff, as an attorney and counselor at law. The frame of the summons and complaint made the action one against Loveridge and Duryea personally, and the judgment asked for was one against them in person.
Read the full summary
About the 29th January, 1870, the plaintiff brought his action against defendants Loveridge and Harman us B. Duryea, describing them to be executors and trustees of the will of one Bowno, to recover the sum of $15,000 for services rendered to them by the plaintiff, as an attorney and counselor at law. The frame of the summons and complaint made the action one against Loveridge and Duryea personally, and the judgment asked for was one against them in person. About December 23d, 1875, the plaintiff amended the summons and complaint, bringing in Elizabeth R. B. King and Samuel B. Duryea as…
1Opinion of the Court
Folger, J.,
reads for modification by inserting before the words “ striking out,” the words “ so far as,” and by striking out the word “ dismissed,” and inserting in lieu thereof this phrase, viz.: “ striclcen out;” and by striking out the words “ and from entering” mid inserting in lieu thereof, the words “so as to enter;” and by reducing the amount of costs allowed to twenty dollars, for making motion in Special Term, and for one appeal to General Term. And as modified, order affirmed, without costs to either party against the other in this court.. All concur, except Rapallo, who is for…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Piedmont Hotel Co. v. A. E. Nettleton Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Brassington v. RohrsNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- United States Trust Co. v. StantonNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- United States Trust Co. v. StantonNew York Supreme Court · 1892