Hyperlawhypertext legal database Herzog v. Shapiro 62 N.Y.S. 780

← Cases

Herzog v. Shapiro

62 N.Y.S. 780 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1900-02-23 English

Delivered by O’GORMAH, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 780
HERZOG v. SHAPIRO et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 23, 1900.)

Headnote

APPE AL—N ON JOINDER.
A judgment for defendants will not be disturbed where defense of nonjoinder of a necessary party defendant is clearly established, and the evidence amply supports the conclusion reached on the merits.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fifth district.
p. 781
Action by Philip Herzog against Barnett Shapiro and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BEEKMAH, P. J., and GIEGEBICH and O’GOEMAN, JJ.
Louis B. Boudin, for appellant.
Epstein Bros., for respondents..

The defense of the nonjoinder of Betsy Shapiro, a necessary party defendant, is clearly established by the proofs. Apart from this point, however, the evidence amply supports the conclusion reached by the court below on the facts, and the judgment appealed from should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.