Everitt v. Everitt
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentFroessel, J.
We dissent and vote to reverse. We do not disagree with Judge Vax Voobhis’ statement “ that if an action has been commenced against a nonresident by the service of a summons and complaint, the complaint cannot be amended by adding new causes of action after the defendant has left the State (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Chapman v. Chapman, 284 App. Div. 504; Restatement, Judgments, § 5, *18comment' g)'.”' Out1 point' of departure- is! with r'espect to a summons served Without- a complaint- bút with a notice as prescribed in rute- 46 of the- Rules of Civil Practice.
In this" casé', the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Chapman v. ChapmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Sharp v. ClappAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Mendoza v. MendozaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948