TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Myers v. Rosenback

Myers v. Rosenback, 29 N.Y.S. 34 (1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Common Pleas · State Trial Courts
Decided
June 4, 1894
Judges
Pryor
Citations
29 N.Y.S. 349 Misc. 8959 N.Y. St. Rep. 699
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Plead mo—Amendment—Supplemental Matter. A supplemental pleading cannot be filed' in a district court of New York City, and therefore supplemental matter may be inserted in an answer by amendment. 28 N. Y. Supp. 9, affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from special term. Action by Frederick S. Myers against Moses S. Rosenback, brought in a district court, and removed to the court of common pleas. From an order allowing matter of supplemental pleading to be incorporated in the answer by amendment (28 N. Y. Supp.), plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pryor

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PRYOR, J.

The distinction between an amended and a supplemental answer is only in the time when the matter of the defense -occurred, or came to the knowledge of the pleader. But time does mot affect the substance of the defense. If good in an amended, it •is good in a supplemental, answer; and, if good in a supplemental, "it is good in an amended, answer. To incorporate in an answer sup■plemental matter, by way of amendment, violates only a technical rule of pleading, and is without effect upon the substantial rights of the parties. It is the distribution of substantial justice, however, ¡irrespective of formal rules of procedure, that is the function of -district courts, in disposing of the litigation before them. Were $they to be fettered by all the technical and recondite rules of practice with which judges and counselors in courts of record are pre: sumed to he conversant, they would surely miscarry in the attainment of that “cheap and speedy justice” which is the end of their institution. We are content to affirm the order on the opinion at special term. 28 N. Y. Supp. 9 . Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1894: 11895: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Oakes v. High32 N.Y.S. 289 (1895) · Concurrence
  2. Zacharias v. French30 N.Y.S. 945 (1894)

Most recent

  1. Oakes v. High32 N.Y.S. 289 (1895) · Concurrence
  2. Zacharias v. French30 N.Y.S. 945 (1894)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Myers v. Rosenback, 28 N.Y.S. 9 (1894) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list