Case Name: Crowley v. Murphy
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-06-27
Citations: 10 N.Y.S. 698
Docket Number: 
Parties: Crowley v. Murphy.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 10
Pages: 698–698

Head Matter:
Crowley v. Murphy.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
June 27, 1890.)
Ejectment—Pleading—Amendment.
After two trials in ejectment, in which the defense is adverse possession, an amendment introducing a new party plaintiff is Improperly allowed, both because of the loches of plaintiff in making the motion to amend, and because on a new trial, to which defendant is entitled as a matter of right, a new issue will be presented as to whether adverse possession can be shown as against the new party.
Appeal from an order made at special term allowing the plaintiff to amend the summons and complaint in this action by adding the name of one Ellen Daly, as party plaintiff, and by adding to the complaint such allegations as might be appropriate to set forth her interests in the premises mentioned in the complaint. The action was commenced in the year 1888, in the name of Cornelius George Crowley, grantor, and Joshua C. Sanders, grantee, against Mary Murphy and others, under section 1501 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to recover the possession of certain premises situate within the city and county of New York.
Argued before Freedman and Truax, JJ.
David S. Ogden, for appellant.- Townsend & Mahlon, for respondent.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
It is not necessary for us to determine the interesting questions suggested by counsel for respondent. If Ellen Daly was not. a necessary party, plaintiff should not have made the motion that he did make. We think that in view of the fact that there have been two trials of this action, and that defendant had paid one large bill of costs to plaintiff, and because of the loches of plaintiff in making the motion, the motion should have been denied, and plaintiff left to commence his action anew. There is another and more important reason why the motion should have been denied. This is an action of ejectment. As before stated, the case has been tried twice. And the defendant has availed herself of the statutory right given by section 1525, and has paid the costs required by that section in ordér to obtain a new trial. This new trial should be of the same issues as those that were tried in the first action. One of the issues tried in the first action was whether, as against the plaintiff in that action, there had been adverse possession. How, if the amendment sought for is allowed, a newissue will be presented in this action, viz., whether the defendant can show adverse possession not only against the plaintiff, Cornelius J. Crowley, but against another person, Ellen' Daly. The plaintiff, if he saw fit to do so, could have discontinued this action, and could have begun another, in which new action he could have brought in all of the necessary parties. The order appealed from is reversed, with costs, and the motion is denied, with $10 costs. '