Case Name: GRANIT v. ABRAMOWITZ et al.
Court: New York Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-11-24
Citations: 112 N.Y.S. 1081
Docket Number: 
Parties: GRANIT v. ABRAMOWITZ et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 112
Pages: 1081–1082

Head Matter:
GRANIT v. ABRAMOWITZ et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 24, 1908.)
Partnership (§ 205*)—Actions Against—Partners Not Served with Process. . -
♦For other oases sea same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Where, though the title of an action did not refer to defendants as co-partners, the complaint contained the allegation usual in an action against a copartnership, and the articles of copartnership, which were before the court, established that defendants were copartners, and the decision rendered so found, a motion by one of the defendants,. who was not served, to vacate the judgment as to him, was properly denied.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 877; Dec.
. Dig. § 205.*]
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York.
Action by Jacob Granit against Louis Abramowitz and Samuel Sherlip. Judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion to vacate the judgment as to him, defendant Sherlip appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN, and SEABURY, JJ.
Mellen & Woodbridge, for appellant.
Manheim & Manheim, for respondent.

Opinion:
SEABURY, J.
It seems to me that the motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied. While the title of the action does not refer to the defendants as copartners, the complaint contains the allegation usual in an action against a copartnership. The decision- rendered in the action finds as a fact that the defendants were copartners. The articles of copartnership, which are before the court, established beyond all question that the defendants were copartners.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., concurs.