Hulbert Bros. & Co. v. Hohman
New York Supreme Court
Motioh to amend summons and complaint herein by making Frederick P. Forster-as receiver of Hulbert Brothers & Company instead of said Hulbert Brothers jfc Company, plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtHiscocx, J.
It seems that at the time this action was commenced the above-named Forster had been appointed receiver of Halbert Brothers & Company and, therefore, the cause of action was vested in him. Through inadvertence the summons and complaint were entitled in the name of the company as plaintiff, and this application is now made to change the name of the plaintiff accordingly.
I think it is within the power of the court to grant the application and that the amendment should be allowed. Code, § 723; Heckemann v. Young, 18 Abb. N. C. 196; Kaplan v. N. Y. Biscuit Co., 5 App. Div. 60.
As was suggested in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dean v. GilbertNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Heckemann v. YoungNew York Supreme Court · 1887
- Kaplan v. New York Biscuit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Van der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Van Tuyl v. New York Real Estate Security Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Van der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934