Court Opinion

ID: 3628529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:08:34.328336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:52.968416
License: Public Domain

It is apparent that on the trial before the referee, the firm of Rubens, *Page 391 
Fredricks  Co. were regarded as the claimants of the goods in controversy. And they were properly so regarded. That firm was made the parties defendants by the plaintiff, with the defendant Kessel. He alleged in his complaint that the bills of lading for said goods had been wrongfully delivered by the defendant Kessel to that firm; and that said defendants, Rubens, Fredricks  Co., paid the value therefor, and had notice of the plaintiff's rights. That he had demanded said bills of lading of that firm, and that the firm refused to deliver the same, and claimed a right to hold the same, and to be entitled to the possession of the said merchandize described therein. The plaintiff thus made the firm of Rubens, Fredricks  Co., the substantial defendants in the action, and as such they were treated in all the proceedings. The answer interposed, although in form in the name of the defendant Fredricks, was distinctly stated to be in the name and on account of the firm of Rubens, Fredricks  Co., in whose name, and for whose account the said transactions in the answer set forth were made. The supplemental being in continuation of the original answer, is to be construed in connection with it, and the counter-claim therein made, is to be taken and deemed a counter-claim made and interposed on behalf of the said firm of Rubens, Fredricks  Co. The defendant Fredricks individually did not set up or pretend that he had any individual interest in said goods, or in the bills of lading, or that individually he had any counter-claim against the plaintiff. The plaintiff's action was against the firm, and the answers are to be regarded as those of the firm. If this were not so, it is very clear that under the code, the supreme court had full authority and ample power to make the amendment which was ordered, by inserting the individual names of the other members of the firm in the answers and in the judgment. Section 173 of the code authorizes the court, before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, on such terms as it may deem proper, to amend any pleading, process or proceeding, by adding or *Page 392 
striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party; or a mistake in any other respect; or by inserting other allegations material to the case; or where the amendment does not substantially change the claim or defense, by conforming the pleading or proceeding to the facts proved. The supreme court in this case ordered the amendments by amending the judgment in accordance with the facts proved on the trial, on the terms of affirmance of the judgment, without costs of the appeal. These amendments did not substantially change the claim of the plaintiff, or the defense interposed. They were, in fact, in harmony with both, and the power might also be sought for, in the authority given to add the name of any party, or to correct any mistake in the name of any party. The amendments were clearly in furtherance of justice, but if they were not, the order of the supreme court making them, is not open to review in this court. (New York Ice Company v. North Western Insurance Company,23 N.Y. 357.) The facts found by the referee are conclusive that the firm of Rubens, Fredricks  Co. were the owners of the goods, and entitled to retain them as against this plaintiff. He having got possession of them, and converted them to his own use, they had a valid claim against him for the value thereof. This counter-claim arose directly out of the transactions set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, and was connected with the subject of the action. (Code, § 150, sub. 1.) It was properly set up in the answer, and correctly passed upon by the referee. The facts proved by him, show that his conclusions of law thereon were correct, and the supreme court rightfully affirmed the judgment.
The judgment should also be affirmed by this court.
SELDEN, J. was absent. All the other judges being for affirmance, judgment affirmed. *Page 393