The Superior Court of New York City, 1892

Cluff v. Day

Cluff v. Day
The Superior Court of New York City · Decided January 11, 1892
28 Jones & S. 306; 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 960; 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 306

Counsel

Charles E. Wilson, attorney for appellant Day, and Isaac’ Fromme, attorney for appellant Thompson, argued:—, Robert Owen, attorney, and Edward B. Whitney of counsel, for respondent, argued :—

Cluff v. Day

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendants’ exceptions were ordered to be heard in the first instance at general term.

The complaint neither states the facts conferring jurisdiction upon the surrogate nor alleges that the decree and amending order referred to in the complaint were duly made, and in this is bad, § 532 Code Civil Procedure.

While as to defendant Thompson it might not be improper to amend the pleading so as to conform to the proof, as the decree was not put in evidence against Day, it is best that the exceptions should be sustained and that there should be a new trial—costs to abide the event. Ordered accordingly.

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