From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Empire State Pickling Co., Inc., v. Bennett

Supreme Court, Ontario County
Dec 31, 1929
135 Misc. 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1929)

Opinion

December 31, 1929.

Abbott, Rippey Hutchens, for the plaintiffs.

Earle S. Warner, for the defendants.


The proposed defendants are not necessary parties. All the bondholders are represented by the trustee. ( Jackson v. Tallmadge, 246 N.Y. 133; Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 U.S. 169; Phoenix Nat. Bk. v. Cleveland Co., 11 N.Y.S. 873; Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 379.) The 31st clause of the complaint is authorized. (Real Property Law, § 501, added by Laws of 1920, chap. 930, as amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 565.) If an adverse claim is set up, an application for a bill of particulars may be applied for. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 247.)

Motions denied, with ten dollars costs to abide event.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Empire State Pickling Co., Inc., v. Bennett

Supreme Court, Ontario County
Dec 31, 1929
135 Misc. 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1929)
Case details for

Empire State Pickling Co., Inc., v. Bennett

Case Details

Full title:EMPIRE STATE PICKLING CO., INC., and Others, Plaintiffs, v. WALTER J…

Court:Supreme Court, Ontario County

Date published: Dec 31, 1929

Citations

135 Misc. 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1929)
238 N.Y.S. 344