Legal Opinion · Dissent

Everitt v. Everitt

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 27, 1958Published

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

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Chapman v. ChapmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  4. Sharp v. ClappAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  5. Mendoza v. MendozaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API