Hyperlawhypertext legal database Goldmark v. Magnolia Metal Co. 53 N.Y.S. 340

← Cases

Goldmark v. Magnolia Metal Co.

53 N.Y.S. 340 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1898-08-10 English

Contents

Majority

p. 340
GOLDMARK v. MAGNOLIA METAL CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
August 10, 1898.)

Headnote

Pleading—Amended Complaint—Service.
It an amended complaint is served in pursuance of permission given by the appellate court upon the disposition of a demurrer to the complaint, it is the duty of the defendant to receive it, irrespective of its sufficiency.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Adolph Goldmark against the Magnolia Metal Company and another. From an order requiring defendants to accept an amended complaint, they appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before BARRETT, RUMSEY, INGRAHAM, and O’BRIEN, JJ.
A. g. Bacon, for appellant.
L. A. Gould, for respondent.

The complaint was served in pursuance of permission given by this court upon the disposition of the demurrer, and, having been thus served, it was the duty of the defendant to receive it; and for that reason this order should be affirmed. In making this disposition, however, we do not pass at all upon the sufficiency of the complaint. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.