Rothchild v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada
New York Supreme Court
Action by Bernard Rothchild and others against the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. Defendant demurs to the complaint on the grounds— First, that the court had no j urisdiction; second, that there was a misjoinder of causes of action; and, third, that there were not sufficient facts stated to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Action by Bernard Rothchild and others against the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. Defendant demurs to the complaint on the grounds— First, that the court had no j urisdiction; second, that there was a misjoinder of causes of action; and, third, that there were not sufficient facts stated to constitute a cause of action. Code Civil Proc, 1ST. Y. § 1775, is as follows: “In an action brought by or against a corporation the complaint must aver that the plaintiff, or the defendant, as the case may be, is a corporation; must state whether it is a domestic corporation or a foreign…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
No particular stress was laid upon the ground of demurrer first above stated, when the case was argued, nor does the brief of the defendant’s counsel disclose sufficient confidence in the correctness of his position in that regard to render it necessary to consider the question at length; and it is perhaps sufficient to say that, if the second and third grounds of demurrer are not well taken, there can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court. The theory of the defendant’s counsel appears to be that the pleader has united a cause of action upon contract with one for tort, and that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ledwich v. . McKimNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Jones v. . WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Sparman v. . KeimNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Fox v. . the Erie Preserving CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Adams v. BissellNew York Supreme Court · 1858
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Nathan v. WoolvertonNew York Supreme Court · 1910
- Purcell v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Adams v. Lamson Consolidated Store-Service Co.New York Supreme Court · 1891
- Ochs v. FreyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Fraser v. Granite State Provident Ass'nThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.