Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The proposed defendants are not necessary parties. All the bondholders are represented by the trustee. (Jackson v. Tallmadge, 246 N. Y. 133; Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 *483U. S. 169; Phœnix Nat. Bk. v. Cleveland Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 873; Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 379.) The 31st clause of the complaint is authorized. (Real Prop. Law, § 501, added by Laws of 1920, chap. 930, as amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 565.) If an adverse claim is set up, an application for a bill of particulars may be applied for. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 247.)
Motions denied, with ten dollars costs to‘abide event.
So ordered.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vetterlein v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Rogers v. RogersNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Jackson v. TallmadgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Phenix National Bank v. A. B. Cleveland Co.New York Supreme Court · 1890