Opinion
June, 1919.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This action, begun in 1918, to recover $50,000 for fraud in 1902, led to many motions, orders and proceedings, that raised questions of difficulty. Finally came a refusal of leave to amend the complaint because such proposed new pleading would be inconsistent with the original complaint. From this order no appeal was taken, but instead the action was discontinued. We, therefore, cannot say that the learned court at Special Term was wrong in imposing a $250 allowance as a condition for leave to discontinue. ( Matter of Waverly Water Works Co., 85 N.Y. 478; People v. Bootman, 180 id. 1; Miller v. Clary, 147 App. Div. 255; Assets Collecting Co. v. Myers, No. 1, 170 id. 265.) Jenks, P.J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.