Howard v. Taylor
The Superior Court of New York City
On an affidavit of C. Brown, that this action is on contract, to recover $314, is at issue, that plaintiffs have assigned their interest-in the subject matter of the action to John C. Brown, and. that the affiant, C. Brown, is desirous the latter should be substituted as plaintiff in this action; the plaintiffs, on a notice from their attorney to the defendant, and to him only, move for an order making such substitution.
Read the full summary
On an affidavit of C. Brown, that this action is on contract, to recover $314, is at issue, that plaintiffs have assigned their interest-in the subject matter of the action to John C. Brown, and. that the affiant, C. Brown, is desirous the latter should be substituted as plaintiff in this action; the plaintiffs, on a notice from their attorney to the defendant, and to him only, move for an order making such substitution. This is opposed, on the ground that the pretended purchaser is the proper party to make the motion.
1Opinion of the Court
Bosworth, Justice.
This motion is made under § 121 of the Code. No notice of it has been given to John C. Brown, and the motion is not made by him, nor on his behalf. He has not had a chance to be heard. He may deny that he has bought the right of action. If the motion was granted, a third person might be made plaintiff in the action, not only without his knowledge, but against his will. If he claims to have purchased the subject matter of the action, he should move to be substituted, if he wishes to be made plaintiff upon the record, and should move on notice to the plaintiffs as well as to…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Sykes v. BeckNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Smith v. HarringtonWyoming Supreme Court · 1891
- Skews v. DunnUtah Supreme Court · 1882
- Platt v. McMurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1882
- Van Rensselaer v. OwenNew York Supreme Court · 1866
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.