Kent v. Erie Railroad
New York Supreme Court
Motion by plaintiff to amend complaint: (1) increasing demand to $50,000; (2) by inserting allegation that at the time of injury, plaintiff and defendant were engaged in interstate commerce; (3) by inserting allegation intended to set up the Federal Safety Appliance Act.
1Opinion of the CourtPooley, J.
The amount of the demand is no criterion and the damages must be proved. The stipulation in 1917 as t'o reduction of the recovery, while significant, is not controlling. This amendment is allowed.
The allegation that the parties were engaged in interstate commerce is similar to the allegation in defendant’s answer, and consonant with the theory upon which the case was submitted on the trial in 1917. It is consistent and proper therefore to be inserted in the complaint, and is allowed.
This action was commenced in September, 1909, was tried in June, 1910, resulting in a verdict for defendant,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. RennSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Ward v. . Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Lang v. New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Kent v. . Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Kent v. . Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kent v. Erie RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922