Lackey v. Vanderbilt
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion to compel the plaintiff to elect upon which one of his first five counts or statements of causes of action in his complaint set forth he would rely; and to strike out the residue as irrelevant or redundant; or that the complaint be set aside as containing several counts on the same cause of action; or as not conformable to the 2d subdivision of the 142d section of the Code.
Read the full summary
This was a motion to compel the plaintiff to elect upon which one of his first five counts or statements of causes of action in his complaint set forth he would rely; and to strike out the residue as irrelevant or redundant; or that the complaint be set aside as containing several counts on the same cause of action; or as not conformable to the 2d subdivision of the 142d section of the Code. The first count of the complaint stated, “ That at the time of the committing the several grievances hereinafter mentioned, and before and afterward, the defendant was and still is a common carrier, and…
1Opinion of the Court
S. B. Strong, Justice.
It appears from the affidavit of the plaintiff’s counsel and a stipulation annexed to it, that the time for the defendant to answer the complaint, and to make such application as he should he advised, was extended to the 19th July last. Notice of the motion to correct the complaint was served on that day. That motion was embraced in the terms of the stipulation, and was therefore in season equally as if the original period for answering had terminated on the same day. The order of Judge Clerke, extending the time to answer, was made on the same day, and was, at all…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rost v. KesslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- Druiding v. LyonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879