From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox v. Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1899
40 App. Div. 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)

Opinion

May Term, 1899.


Order modified as directed in opinion and as modified affirmed, without costs.


We think that the court might very well have denied the motion to amend. It is conceded that upon the record as it stands the defendant must succeed and that he has been compelled to go through a trial and an appeal in order to establish the correctness of his position, and, as has been said in the case of McEntyre v. Tucker, decided herewith ( ante, p. 444), he is entitled to be reimbursed for the proceedings by which he was enabled to establish his defense. We think, therefore, that the order should be modified by requiring as a condition of amendment that all the costs of the action, including those of the appeal, subsequent to the service of the complaint should be paid. The order, as so modified, should be affirmed, without costs. Barrett, Rumsey and Patterson, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Fox v. Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1899
40 App. Div. 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
Case details for

Fox v. Davidson

Case Details

Full title:Henry E. Fox, Respondent, v. Isaac Davidson, Appellant

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

Date published: May 1, 1899

Citations

40 App. Div. 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)

Citing Cases

Rowe v. Gerry. No. 2

The lienors did not elect to have a new trial of the cause of action set forth in their pleadings as they…

Lindblad v. Lynde

The defendant was, therefore, justified in defending; and for the costs and disbursements to which he has…