Case ID: nys_44/html/0041-01.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

OLNEY v. GOODWIN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    March 5, 1897.)
    Pleading—Amendment—Descuiption of Parties.
    A new plaintiff, is not substituted by amending the summons which described plaintiff as “O., Receiver,” so as to read, “O., as Receiver of the Sargent Granite Company.” Munzinger v. Courier Co., 31 N. Y. Supp. 737, 82 Hun, 575, followed. i
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by Peter B. Olney, as receiver, etc., against Frank W. Goodwin. The action was commenced by service of summons describing plaintiff as “Peter B. Olney, Receiver.” The complaint as served on defendant’s attorneys described plaintiff as “Peter B. Olney, as Receiver of the Sargent Granite Company.” The complaint was returned for this variance, and defendant moved for dismissal for want of a complaint. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the summons to correspond to the complaint. From orders denying defendant’s motion, and granting plaintiff’s motion, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
    Joseph Fettretch, for appellant.
    G. C. Comstock, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The order in this case should be affirmed, on the authority of Munzinger v. Courier Co. (82 Hun, 575, 31 N. Y. Supp. 737.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.