Legal Opinion
Tirpaeck v. Sweet
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 7, 1931PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
The order denying defendant’s motion to make respondent Pearson a party defendant should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. There is no claim that any relation exists between defendant and respondent Pearson other than that of joint tort feasors. Therefore, unless section 211-a of the Civil Practice Act (as added by Laws of 1928, chap. 714) indicates a contrary holding, the application to bring in Pearson was correctly denied. (Greenhouse v. Rochester Taxicab Co., 218 App. Div. 224.) The statute cited is presumptively prospective in operation (Jacobus v. Colgate, 217 N. Y.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jacobus v. . ColgateNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Laird v. . CartonNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Haines v. Bero Engineering Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Greenhouse v. Rochester Taxicab Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Bargeon v. Seashore Transportation Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Dee v. SpencerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931