People ex rel. Petry v. Bevoise

We think that Petry is a proper party plaintiff to this action. He certainly has an interest in the subject-matter and in obtaining the judgment demanded. This, under section446, Code of CivilProcedure, justifies his appearance as plaintiff. Under the former Code he would have been a necessary party. (People ex rel. Crane v. Ryder, 12 N. Y., 433.) It may be that since the change in phraseology of the new Code he is not now a necessary party, but we do not think he has ceased to be a proper party. The statement in the complaint, “ The People complaining on the relation of George Petry,” is a sufficient allegation that the action is brought on the relation of Petry, especially as Petry joins in it. We doubt if a defect in that respect would be ground for a demurrer.

Order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to answer over on payment of costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to answer in twenty days on payment of costs.