Hyperlawhypertext legal database Beugger v. Rubino 123 N.Y.S. 377

← Cases

Beugger v. Rubino

123 N.Y.S. 377 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1910-05-27 English

Contents

Majority

p. 377
BEUGGER v. RUBINO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 27, 1910.)

Headnote

Pleading (§ 265[1] )—Reply to Amended Answer—Order Therefor.
An order directing a reply to new matter in an amended answer should require as a condition that the case retain its place on the calendar as of the present date of issue and be tried when reached without further notice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 806; Dec. Dig. § 265.*]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Johannes A. Beugger against Henry A. Rubino. From an order directing a reply to new matter in an amended answer, plaintiff appeals.
Modified and affirméd.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, CLARKE, and DOWLING, JJ.
Norman B. Becker, for appellant.
Edward W. Hatch, for respondent.

The order should be modified, by requiring, as a condition of ordering the reply, that the case retain its place on the calendar as of the present date of issue, and be tried when reached without further notice of trial, and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent.