Legal Opinion
Larkin v. Pennsylvania Railroad
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 17, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Proskauer, J.:
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, which they properly claim is to be limited by the bills of particulars (and the plans forming the schedules thereof). (Dineen v. May, 149 App. Div. 469; Davison Coal Co. v. Nat. Park Bank, 201 id. 309.)
The plaintiff’s allegations are substantially that the defendants respectively were interested in or owned the land upon which the Pennsylvania Hotel now stands; that beneath part of the land are the tunnels and tracks of the railroad; that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Dineen v. MayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Burnell v. ChownU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · 1895
- Edwards v. TennisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Ed Graham Productions, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.New York Supreme Court · 1973
- Plus Promotions, Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Alberts v. Remington Rand, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- Stone v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.New York Supreme Court · 1939