Grossman v. Loeber Hair Co.
City of New York Municipal Court
Action by one Grossman and others against the Loeber Hair Company. Judgment against defendant by default, and plaintiffs apply for an ex parte order to amend the summons, complaint, and judgment to conform to defendant’s correct name. Application granted.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The defendant, a foreign corporation, was erroneously sued as Loeber Hair Company. It does not appear. Judgment was taken against it by default, and the plaintiff has applied ex parte for an order so amending the summons, complaint, and judgment as to conform to its correct name, Loeber Hair Goods Company.
[1] If the defendant was a natural person, according to some authorities, the application could not be granted (Fischer v. Hetherington, 11 Misc. Rep. 575, 32 N. Y. Supp. 795; Chadwick v. Navel, 33 Misc. Rep. 683, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1110; Stromberg v. Carnese, 35 Misc. Rep. 289, 71 N. Y. Supp.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Stuyvesant v. . WeilNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Whittlesey v. . FrantzNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Schoellkopf v. OhmeisNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Corn v. HeymsfeldAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1912
- McNeal v. Hayes Machine Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.