Tucci v. Romeo
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Appeal from an order dated January 21,1916, denying a motion to amend a summons vacating a requisition to replevy and dismissing the action, which order was filed in the clerk’s office of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, fifth district.
1Opinion of the CourtCallaghan, J.
This action was brought in replevin. The summons was issued by plaintiff’s attorney at the time the order to replevy was granted and was made returnable forthwith. One of the defendants appeared specially for the purpose of vacating the order of replevin upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction.
Plaintiff then moved to amend the summons nunc pro tuna, so that it would read that the time within which defendant should appear and answer the complaint would be ‘ ‘ five days, ’ ’ instead of ‘‘ forthwith. ’ ’ The motion to amend was denied. The order of replevin was vacated and the action…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stuyvesant v. . WeilNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Osborn v. McCloskeyNew York Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by5 opinions
- Steffens v. MartinAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1917
- Barth v. OwensCity of New York Municipal Court · 1942
- Hober v. ReikertAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1916
- Schoffel v. Goodstein, New York County Courts1919
- Bullard v. Bullard Orchards, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1992