Hyperlawhypertext legal database Barnett v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp. 160 N.Y.S. 1052

← Cases

Barnett v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp.

160 N.Y.S. 1052 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1916-10-20 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — McLAUGHLIN, J.,

Contents
p. 1052
(175 App. Div. 881)
BARNETT v. HOLBROOK, CABOT & ROLLINS CORP.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
October 20, 1916.)

Headnote

Pleading @=>276—Service op Supplemental Answer—Costs.
An order granting the defendant’s motion to serve a supplemental answer will be conditioned on the payment of the taxable costs to date to the plaintiff.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 833, 835; Dec. Dig. @=>276.]
McLaughlin, J., dissenting.
<@=sFor other cases see same topic & KEY -NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
p. 1053
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Enoch Barnett against the Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation. From part of an order granting defendant’s motion to serve a supplemental answer, the plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed.
See, also, 171 App. Div. 432 , 157 N. Y. Supp. 366 .
Argued before CLARKE, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and SMITH, JJ.
Sydney A. Syme, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
Benjamin Patterson, of New York City, for respondent.

The order appealed from is modified by imposing as a condition of granting the motion the payment of taxable costs to date to the plaintiff, and as so modified affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order on notice.

dissents on the round that the plaintiff had the right to settle the cause of action, and the defendant had a right to serve without costs a supplemental action showing that fact.