Case ID: ny-st-rep_18/html/0457-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert C. Watson, as Trustee, etc., App’lt, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 3, 1888.)
    
    Time to answeb amended complaint—Extension ob.
    The plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint by dropping one of the causes of action. The defendant appealed from the order granting leave to amend the complaint. Held, that it was proper to extend defendant’s time to answer until the appeal could be heard and disposed of.
    Appeal from an order extending defendant’s time to answer an amended complaint.
    
      Burnett & Whitney, for app’lt; Davies & Rapallo, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

"we think the order granting plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by dropping one of the causes fo action, so changed it that defendant was entitled to interpose an answer to the complaint as amended by the order. The answer as it stands, contains allegations which were relevant when the complaint contained two causes of action, but which are not properly a part of the answer when one of the causes of action is stricken out. The deiendant having twenty days in which to answer, and having appealed from the order granting leave to amend the complaint, and which made the answer necessary, it was proper to extend the time to answer until that appeal could be heard and disposed of. If the order had been reversed, no new answer would have been required.”

Order affirmed with costs.