From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanford v. Cayuga Linen and Cotton Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1938
255 App. Div. 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

November 16, 1938.

Present — Sears, P.J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: All oral negotiations between the parties were had prior to the date of the signing of the contract and were merged in the written contract. Therefore, it would be useless to permit an amendment alleging that the contract was partly oral and partly written, as evidence to support such allegation would be incompetent. The courts will not permit an amendment where it clearly appears that it will not be of benefit to the party seeking the same but will result in wasting the time of the trial court and causing unnecessary expense to the county in which the venue is laid. ( Muller v. Muller, 35 Hun, 670; Woentz v. City of New York, 101 Misc. 622; affd., 183 App. Div. 944.) All concur. (The order denies a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint in an action on a contract.)


Summaries of

Stanford v. Cayuga Linen and Cotton Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1938
255 App. Div. 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Stanford v. Cayuga Linen and Cotton Mills, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH M. STANFORD, as Assignee, Appellant, v. CAYUGA LINEN AND COTTON…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1938

Citations

255 App. Div. 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Station Assoc. v. Long Island R.R. Co.

not examine into and determine the merits or legal sufficiency of a proposed pleading, unless it appears on…

Keller v. Greyhound Corp.

Such liberal construction, however, does not warrant granting leave to serve a supplemental proceeding when…