Winters v. King
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, John King and another, as receivers, :■ etc., of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, and by the Erie Railroad Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at..the Orange Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county, of Sullivan on the 10th day of November, 1899, making the Erie Railroad Company a party defendant in the action and giving the plaintiff leave to serve • a supplemental summons and complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants, John King and another, as receivers, :■ etc., of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, and by the Erie Railroad Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at..the Orange Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county, of Sullivan on the 10th day of November, 1899, making the Erie Railroad Company a party defendant in the action and giving the plaintiff leave to serve • a supplemental summons and complaint. The action was brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendants. .
1Opinion of the Court
Herrick, J.:
It is claimed by the plaintiff that the appellant, the Erie Railroad Company, has assumed, by its deed of purchase, the liabilities incurred by the receivers in operating what was formerly the New York, Lake Erie and Westérn Railroad Company. And it is a general rule that where a third party becomes interested in a pending litigation, by assuming the-.liabilities of the defendant in respect to the claim the plaintiff is seeking to enforce, it :is proper to allow a supplemental,complaint bringing in such third party as a co-defendant in the action. (Prouty v. Lake Shore & M. S. R.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Prouty v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Abbott v. . New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890