Lindemann v. Wolf

6 Citing cases

  1. Ammerman v. Berry

    263 App. Div. 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)   Cited 2 times

    He failed to appear at the time of the trial although due notice was given. General jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is conferred upon a County Court by appearing and answering generally in an action where the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. ( Meyers v. American Locomotive Co., 201 N.Y. 163; Lindemann v. Wolf, 234 App. Div. 291; Yager v. Yager, 214 id. 671; Dulso v. Dulso, 170 id. 67.) Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

  2. Meyer v. Chester View Incorporated

    250 App. Div. 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

    Appeal from City Court of Yonkers. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. ( Battaly v. Coffin, 236 App. Div. 807; Lindemann v. Wolf, 234 id. 291.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

  3. Notter v. Union Railway Company of New York City

    247 App. Div. 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

    On that issue, in so far as concerned the railway company, the plaintiff could have called the pipe company's witnesses, subject to whatever disadvantages that might involve, but this she did not do. Not having called them, their testimony given in behalf of the pipe company could not be transformed into a part of the plaintiff's case. ( Thomas v. Nassau Electric R.R. Co., supra; Lindemann v. Wolf, 234 App. Div. 291.) Since it is impossible to determine whether the jury found against the railway company on the testimony of the plaintiff or on the testimony offered by the pipe company, the judgment against the railway company must be reversed and, as to it, a new trial granted.

  4. Nixon v. Beacon Transportation Corporation

    239 App. Div. 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)   Cited 7 times

    Accordingly, the trial court's ruling was correct. The challenge to the court's ruling with respect to allowing the codefendant Wilson to withdraw at the close of plaintiffs' case has no validity. ( Thomas v. Nassau Electric R.R. Co., 185 App. Div. 326; Lindemann v. Wolf, 234 id. 291.) The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

  5. People ex Rel. Smoake v. Morrow

    58 Misc. 2d 266 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    If the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter but lacks jurisdiction of the person of a party, it may obtain the latter by said party's consent or stipulation submitting to such jurisdiction or by subjecting himself to said jurisdiction ( Henderson v. Henderson, 247 N.Y. 428, 432; Revona Realty Corp. v. Wasserman, 4 A.D.2d 444, 448; Hecht v. Occhipinti Realty Co., 254 App. Div. 96, affd. 278 N.Y. 724; Lindemann v. Wolf, 234 App. Div. 291; Dratfield v. McKenzie, 191 N.Y.S.2d 823; People ex rel. Wojek v. Henderson, 134 Misc. 228, 230; Wachtell, New York Practice Under the CPLR, p. 47; 1 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, ยง 2:80; Paperno Goldstein, Criminal Procedure in New York, p. 151; cf. People ex rel. Burkardt v. Elsaesser, 244 App. Div. 891; People ex rel. Rose v. Additon, 189 Misc. 102). The Justice of the Supreme Court acted upon the information laid before him, not upon the facts which might or should have been alleged in the petition by relator, then the petitioner (cf. People ex rel. Pettibone v. Superintendent of N.Y. State Reformatory at Elmira, 162 Misc. 125, 127).

  6. Auto Dealers Discount Corp. v. Santoro

    170 Misc. 635 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1939)   Cited 1 times

    The courts have repeatedly held that jurisdiction may not be waived over the subject-matter of the action, but that jurisdiction of the person may be waived. ( Meyers v. American Locomotive Co., 201 N.Y. 163; Lindemann v. Wolf, 234 A.D. 291. ) Section 278 of the Civil Practice Act provides that: