Bank of the Metropolis v. Lissner
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
. Appear by the plaintiff,, the Bank of the Metropolis, -from an .order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered-in the office of "the clerk of the county of New. York on the 22d day of May, 1895,. granting the defendant leave to serve a supplemental answer, setting up as a' bar to the present action, a judgment recovered in a former action between the same parties.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
In spite cf the mandatory language of section 544 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is nevertheless within the discretion of the court to grant applications of this kind or to refuse them (Fleischmann v. Bennett, 79 N. Y. 579), and they will be refused whenever it appears that an injustice would be worked by allowing a supplemental answer to be served. (Holyoke v. Adams, 59 N. Y. 237.) It is quite clear in this case, we think, that it woúld be unjust so far to decide the question of the admissibility of this evidence as might even inferentially be done by permitting the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Krekeler v. . RitterNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Fleischmann v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Conried v. WitmarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Jones v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904