Case Name: WHITEHEAD BROS. CO., Respondent, v. SMACK, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-05-11
Citations: 45 N.Y.S. 1150
Docket Number: 
Parties: WHITEHEAD BROS. CO., Respondent, v. SMACK, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 45
Pages: 1150–1150

Head Matter:
WHITEHEAD BROS. CO., Respondent, v. SMACK, Appellant.
(City Court of New York,
General Term.
May 11, 1897.)
Action by the Whitehead Bros. Company against Robert Smack.
James P. All bright, for appellant.
Baggott & Ryall, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of goods sold. Defendant in his answer claimed that he and one Ella McKinley were co-partners, and that she should have been made a party defendant. Six months after the service of the answer the plaintiff asked leave to serve an amended summons and complaint, making said McKinley a party defendant, and leave so to do was granted on payment-of $20 costs, with leave to the defendant to answer or demur, and without prejudice to proceedings theretofore taken in the action. From the order so made this appeal is taken. The court certainly had the right to grant leave to amend, even after judgment, on reasonable terms being imposed. The object of the imposition of the costs is to compensate the attorney for the trouble and expense that such an amendment would subject him to; the amount of which compensation, of course, varies and depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular instance in question. In this instance we think that the terms imposed by the special term justice were just and reasonable to every one concerned, and therefore the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs to the respondent.