Legal Opinion
Nichols v. Clark, MacMullen & Riley, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 28, 1933PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrane, J.
The Appellate Division has certified to this court the following question: “ Should the court have vacated the order joining the defendant-appellant as an additional party pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act?”
The defendants made a motion to bring in The Celotex Company on the ground that that company would be hable to them for the claim of the plaintiffs; in other words, that The Celotex Company would be liable over on the judgment roll for any damages recovered by the plaintiffs on the cause of action set forth in the complaint. The motion was granted ex parte…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Glanzer v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- White v. GuarenteNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Consolidated Fisheries Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Mull v. Colt Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Greenberg v. LorenzNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
- George Cohen Agency, Inc. v. Donald S. Perlman Agency, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.