Case ID: ny-sup-ct_27/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES FINCKE and others, Trustees, etc., Respondents, v. JAMES ROURKE, Appellant.
    
      Action on a contract payable in installments —payments falling cbue after the commencement of the action, '¡nay be set up by supplemental complaint.
    
    Appeal from on order made at Special Term, allowing the plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint.
    The action was based upon an agreement for the sale of land to be paid for by installments.
    At the time the action was commenced the contract had not wholly matured, and the claim was for several installments, which had then by the terms of the contract become due. At the time of making the motion the contract had matured, and plaintiff was permitted to set up that fact and claim such further relief as the case justified.
    The court, at General Term, said : “ This was consistent with the original cause of action; both the original and supplemental complaints are based upon the same agreement, the supplemental complaint merely allowing the plaintiff to allege subsequently occurring facts, which varied the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled under the original complaint.
    “ This practice was right upon principle and authority. (Eager v. Price, 2 Paige, 369; Ifasbrouclc v. Shuster, 4 Barb., 285.) ”
    
      ■Daniel T. Walden, for the appellant. Thomas E. Rodman, for the respondents.
   Opinion by

Pratt, J.,

Barnard, P.. J., concurred; Gilbert, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.