New York Supreme Court, 1929

Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett

Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 31, 1929 · Rodenbeck
135 Misc. 482; 238 N.Y.S. 344; 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1034

Counsel

Abbott, Rippey & Hutchens, for the plaintiffs., Earle S. Warner, for the defendants.

Empire State Pickling Co. v. Bennett

Opinion of the Court

Rodenbeck, J.

The proposed defendants are not necessary parties. All the bondholders are represented by the trustee. (Jackson v. Tallmadge, 246 N. Y. 133; Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 *483U. S. 169; Phœnix Nat. Bk. v. Cleveland Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 873; Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 379.) The 31st clause of the complaint is authorized. (Real Prop. Law, § 501, added by Laws of 1920, chap. 930, as amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 565.) If an adverse claim is set up, an application for a bill of particulars may be applied for. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 247.)

Motions denied, with ten dollars costs to‘abide event.

So ordered.

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