Case Name: HAMMER v. INDEPENDENT LAMP & WIRE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-06-21
Citations: 159 N.Y.S. 744
Docket Number: 
Parties: HAMMER v. INDEPENDENT LAMP & WIRE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 159
Pages: 744–747

Head Matter:
HAMMER v. INDEPENDENT LAMP & WIRE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
June 21, 1916.)
1. Corporations <§=>591—Consolidation—Action for Services—Sufficiency of Complaint.
A complaint, in an action to recover the value of services as an electrical expert alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff for a corporation and for disbursements in connection therewith, on the ground that the defendant corporation was liable because it had acquired all of the assets and had assumed all the debts of the first corporation, failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2034, 2368-2372; Dec. Dig. <§=>591.]
2. Pleading <§=>237(1)—Trial—Amendment.
In such case, where a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was made at the opening of the trial, and due exception taken to its denial, the trial judge had no power to allow an amendment attempting to plead the omitted facts under the guise of “conforming the pleadings to the proof.”
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 603; Dec. Dig. <@=>237(1).]
Guy, J., dissenting.
<@^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by William J. Hammer against the Independent Lamp & Wire Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Argued June term, 1916,
before GUY, BIJUR, and PHILBIN, JJ.
Stern & Gotthold, of New York City (Arthur E. Gotthold and Ernest J. Ellenwood, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
William R. Page, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
BIJUR, J.
I am of opinion that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Automatic Co. v. Twisted Wire Co., 159 App. Div. 656, 660, 144 N. Y. Supp. 1037), and that, a motion to dismiss the same on that ground having been made at the opening of the trial and due exception taken to its denial, the learned judge below had no power to allow an amendment attempting to plead the omitted facts under the guise of "conforming the pleadings to the proofs" (Block v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 60 App. Div. 191, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1107; Wheeler v. Hall, 54 App. Div. 49, 53, 66 N. Y. Supp. 257; Fiorito v. Interurban Street Ry. Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 614, 95 N. Y. Supp. 528).
The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.
PHILBIN, J., concurs.