Vanderbeck v. City of Rochester
New York Supreme Court
Appeal by tbe plaintiff from a judgment of tbis court entered in Moni’oe county, in favor of tbe defendant and against tbe plaintiff, upon tbe report of a referee dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon tbe merjts with costs; and also from an order granted at a Special Term of tbis court permitting tbe defendant to make and serve a supplemental answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal by tbe plaintiff from a judgment of tbis court entered in Moni’oe county, in favor of tbe defendant and against tbe plaintiff, upon tbe report of a referee dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon tbe merjts with costs; and also from an order granted at a Special Term of tbis court permitting tbe defendant to make and serve a supplemental answer. Tbe common council of tbe respondent pursuant to tbe provisions of its charter on tbe 18tli of July, 1876, after bearing tbe allegations from all interested parties appearing, adopted and passed an ordinance to open a boulevard in tbat city 100…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, J. :
The order permitting the service of the supplemental answer was discretionary. (Code of Civil Pro., § 544.) The discretion was properly exercised in this case. (Spears v. The Mayor of New York, 72 N. Y., 442.)
From the view we have taken of this case, however, the service of the supplemental answer did not prejudice the plaintiff’s case. The appellant paid the money she now seeks to recover to release the land in which she had simply a dower interest from the assessment. No process had been issued for its collection. Notice had been given her in May, 1879, through the mail, that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bradford v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1861
- Spears v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Harrison v. PeckNew York Supreme Court · 1870