New York Supreme Court, 1891

Thurber-Whyland Co. v. Klittner

New York Supreme Court · Decided December 14, 1891 · Pratt

16 N.Y.S. 828; 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 157; 62 Hun 620; 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2269 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Walter J. Donohue, (William Riley, of counsel,) for appellant. Ellis & Harrigan, for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

Pratt, J.

The complaint was consistent with the facts, and recited the assignment of the claim by the copartnership to the new corporation formed to continue its business. The issuance of the summons in the name of the copartnership instead of the corporation was a manifest error, which the court had power to amend. It was an error in the name, which was properly corrected on motion. Order affirmed", with $10 costs and disbursements.

All concur.

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