Summary
In Bank v. Dimock, 24 N. J. Eq. 27, Chancellor RUN-YON, in pronouncing the judgment on this subject, used the admirable and comprehensive language of Chancellor GREEN, as follows, in Huffman v. Hummer, 17 N. J. Eq. 271: "'An application to amend an answer is addressed to the discretion of the court.
Summary of this case from Welsh's Ex'rs v. ArnettOpinion
No. 22961.
Motion Submitted January 11, 1954.
Decided February 5, 1954.
Petition for writ of mandamus in review of the decision of Judge Edward J. Dimock, sustaining the Third Amended Complaint of Arnold Bernstein against a motion to dismiss in Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij (Chemical Bank Trust Co., Third Party Defendant), D.C.S.D.N.Y., 117 F. Supp. 898. Petition denied.
Shearman Sterling Wright, New York City, for petitioner; John A. Wilson, New York City, of counsel.
Burlingham, Hupper Kennedy, New York City, for Holland-American Line in support of petitioner; Harold M. Kennedy and Hervey C. Allen, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Bennet, House Couts, New York City, for Arnold Bernstein, plaintiff below, in opposition; Victor House, Albert I. Edelman and Werner Ilsen, New York City, of counsel.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner charges that Judge Dimock disregarded our mandate in Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij (Chemical Bank Trust Co.), 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 71, 75-76, but since we have amended our mandate in this case, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 375, we find it unnecessary to pass on the validity of the petitioner's contentions or the propriety of resort to mandamus.
Petition denied.