From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 1908
129 App. Div. 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

December 2, 1908.

Francis R. Stoddard, Jr. [ George D. Yeomans with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Adolph Ruger, for the respondent.


A judgment for the plaintiff being reversed, she then moved for leave to amend her complaint by a new allegation of negligence, as the ground of reversal was such that recovery could not be had on the original allegation of negligence. The motion was granted on payment of $30. The terms should have been payment of all costs after service of the answer ( McEntyre v. Tucker, 40 App. Div. 444; Rosenberg v. Feiering, 124 id. 522).

The order must be modified accordingly.

JENKS, HOOKER, RICH and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

Order modified in accordance with opinion and as so modified affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 1908
129 App. Div. 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Woolsey v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Co.

Case Details

Full title:LIZZIE WOOLSEY, Respondent, v . BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY…

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

Date published: Dec 2, 1908

Citations

129 App. Div. 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
113 N.Y.S. 245

Citing Cases

Liguori v. American Railway Traffic Company

Order modified so as to provide that the motion to amend be granted upon payment of all costs after the…