From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Snedecor v. Chapel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1920
192 App. Div. 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920)

Opinion

May, 1920.


Plaintiff was not premature in moving for judgment upon the first answer, since she moved after issue joined. (Code Civ. Proc. § 547.) A power to amend cannot be invoked to defeat such motion unless exercised by serving a new answer before the motion is heard. ( Dorf v. Corsa, 163 N.Y. Supp. 602.) But service of a new answer wholly supersedes the original answer. The order thereon then becomes unimportant, save as to motion costs, and upon the hearing here these have been waived. Nothing substantial being now left, the appeal is dismissed, without costs. Jenks, P.J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Kelly, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Snedecor v. Chapel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1920
192 App. Div. 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920)
Case details for

Snedecor v. Chapel

Case Details

Full title:MINNEHAHA SNEDECOR, Respondent, v. EDWARD R. CHAPEL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 1, 1920

Citations

192 App. Div. 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920)

Citing Cases

Wrobleski v. Wakefield Homes, Inc.

Subsequent to the taking of this appeal, defendant Wakefield Homes, Inc., served a further amended answer, by…

Volpe v. Manhattan Savings Bank

In so far as the motion was one to strike out the answer, that pleading was superseded by the amended answer…