Case Name: Tom L. Johnson and Another, Respondents, v. The Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02
Citations: 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tom L. Johnson and Another, Respondents, v. The Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn, Appellant.
Judges: Pratt, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 83
Pages: 12–15

Head Matter:
Tom L. Johnson and Another, Respondents, v. The Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn, Appellant.
Amended answer — leame to serve, when properly denied, — laches.
An application for leave to serve an amended answer is properly denied on the ground of laches when the litigation has already continued over three years and when the defendant, long before the institution thereof, knew of a certain assignment which it desired to plead by the amended answer, the effect of which assignment would be not to relieve the defendant from liability, but to establish that its liability was to another person. (Dykman, J., dissenting.)
'The application in such case should be denied on condition that the plaintiff obtains an assignment of the cause of action from the party to whom it has been assigned by the assignment sought to be set up by the amended answer.
Appeal by the defendant, The Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Dutchess County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 20th day of November, 1893, denying the defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer.
Tracy, Boardmcm (& Platt, for the appellant.
James C. Church, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Cullen, J.:
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's application for leave to serve an amended answer.
This litigation arises out of a lease executed by the defendant to-the plaintiffs. The defendant sued the plaintiffs for the rent agreed to be paid, but was defeated. (13d N. Y. 3J5.) The plaintiffs-brought this action to recover damages for breach of defendant's covenants. The lease was executed • in 1886. The defendant's-action was instituted in 1888 and this' action in 1890. In the-defendant's action for rent, the present plaintiffs alleged as a defense an assignment of the lease of the Brooklyn Cable Company, and its acceptance as a tenant by the Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company. The decision in that case proceeded on another ground. Itr thus appears that -the defendant, long before the institution of this, action, knew of the assignment. The amendment now desired by it is to plead such assignment.
We think that the application was properly denied on account of the laches of the defendant. This suit has been in litigation over three years, and has been to the Court of Appeals upon an interlocutory order. As to whether under the present answer the-defendant can show the assignment to defeat the title of the plaintiff to the damages suffered, or whether such assignment, if shown, would defeat the plaintiff's title, we express no opinion. But it appears-from the affidavits that the cable company practically is the property of the plaintiffs. The defense sought to be interposed does not go to relieve the defendant from liability, but to establish that its liability is in law to another person. If it was intended to question Johnson's right to the recovery, if any such might be had, it should have been done promptly. If the defense sought to be-pleaded was that defendant was liable to no one, we might look upon it with favor. But the effect of the amendment will be to cause the bringing of another suit by the cable company, so that in one case or the other there may be the right plaintiffs. "We think that the defendant should not now be granted any favor in this respect, but the defendant should be saved from any risk of a double litigation or of being compelled to pay the claim twice.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, provided that within thirty days the plaintiffs obtain an assignment to themselves of any claim the cable company may have against the defendant under the lease ; in default thereof the application may be renewed.
Pratt, J., concurred.