New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893

Guliano v. Whitenack

Guliano v. Whitenack
New York Court of Common Pleas · Decided March 13, 1893
22 N.Y.S. 560; 3 Misc. 54; 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 768 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Joseph Wamsley, for appellant., J. Hampden Dougherty, for respondent. ■

Guliano v. Whitenack

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We are clear that the learned trial judge at special term well exercised his discretion in allowing the supplemental answer. But we are of opinion that the order should have been granted on the condition of a stipulation by defendant to pay the taxable costs and disbursements to the date of the order. If the defendant will so stipulate, the order is affirmed; otherwise, it is-reversed. No costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.