Hyperlawhypertext legal database Roome v. Jennings 20 N.Y.S. 614

← Cases

Roome v. Jennings

20 N.Y.S. 614 Court N.Y. City Ct. Decision date 1892-10-24 English

Delivered by Ehrlich, C. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 614
Roome et al. v. Jennings et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
October 24, 1892.)

Headnote

Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint—Waiver of Defects.
Where the objection that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is not taken until after trial, it is sufficient if the complaint in some form contain' the elements essential to a cause of action.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by William P. Boome and others against Frederick C. Jennings and William Butterfield. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and McCarthy, J.
Putney & Bishop, for appellants. F. A. Thompson, for respondents.

Where the objection that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is not taken until after the trial, the allegations are not subject to as close a criticism as upon demurrer. It is sufficient if the complaint in some form contains the elements essential to a cause of action. Disbrow v. Harris, 122 N. Y. 362 , 25 N. E. Rep. 356 ; Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. 332 ; Sanders v. Soutter, 126 N. Y. 193 , 27 N. E. Rep. 263 ; Clark v. Crego, 51 N. Y. 646 . The complaint, liberally construed, makes out a complete cause of action, and the case was properly sent to the jury on the evidence. It was intelligently submitted, and the proofs sufficiently warrant the result arrived at. There is no merit in the exceptions.

It follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited