Case Name: MARY SENFT, Respondent v. THE MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-06-10
Citations: 27 Jones & S. 571
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY SENFT, Respondent v. THE MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 59
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
MARY SENFT, Respondent v. THE MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
Appeal—Objections not taken below, cannot be urged for reversal. An order ivas made allowing a substitution of a plaintiff, and directing that so much of the cause of action in the original complaint as is for equitable relief be continued in the name of the substituted- plaintiff, and allowing the substituted plaintiff to serve a supplemental complaint setting up such cause of action. lx A supplemental complaint was served which set up an original cause of action in favor of the substituted plaintiff; an answer was served to such supplemental complaint. The cause was tried and judgment ordered for plaintiff on a case that supported the supplemental complaint. No motion to set aside the supplemental complaint as not conforming to the order had been made, nor any other proceedings based on that ground taken. On appeal it was objected that it was not com petent to try any other case than such as existed at the beginning of the action by the original plaintiff, and that the substituted plaintiff could not recover on a cause of action accrued after the action was begun. This objection was not taken on the trial. Held, that the objection was not available on appeal.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Truax and Dugro, JJ.
Decided June 10, 1891.
Appeal from judgment entered upon findings and conclusions made by a judge upon a trial at equity term, before the court without a jury.-
Davies & Sapallo, attorneys, and Julien T. Davies and Brainard Tolies of counsel, for appellants.
James B. Ludlow, attorney and of counsel, for respondent.

Opinion:
The Court (per Curiam) held as stated in the headnote, and affirmed the judgment.