Case Name: Balthasar Diehl, Respondent, v. David Beck and Rosa Beck, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 61 A.D. 570
Docket Number: 
Parties: Balthasar Diehl, Respondent, v. David Beck and Rosa Beck, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 570–570

Head Matter:
Balthasar Diehl, Respondent, v. David Beck and Rosa Beck, Appellants.
Supplemental answer —an application foi' leave to serve, must contain it.
A motion for léave to serve a supplemental answer is properly denied, where the defendant neglects to serve a copy of the proposed pleading -with his motion papers.
Appeal by the defendants, David Beck and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 7th day of March, 1901, denying the defendants’ motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer.
Jacob Rieger, for the appellants.
Frank Barker, for the respondent. .

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam :
The defendant neglected to serve with his motion papers the proposed pleading'; and this,' among others, may have been the reason for the denial of the motion. 'Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. ' '
Present—'Patteeson, O'Bbien, Ingbaham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and. disbursements.