New York State Monitor Milk Pan Ass'n v. Remington Agricultural Works
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Ward v. Terry & Tench Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Lewin v. Wright (New York Supreme Court 1884)
- Richardson v. Millard (New York Supreme Court 1968)
- Adams v. Hirsch (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. v. Grannis Bros. (N.C. 1950)
- Safrin v. Joe Friedman Hat Co. (New York Supreme Court 1949)
- Abrams v. General Financial Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1948)
- Haney v. Thomson (Mo. 1936)
- Davidson v. Payne (8th Cir. 1923)
- Goldstein v. Peter Fox Sons Co. (N.D. 1912)
- Portland Gold Min. Co. v. Stratton's Independence, Ltd. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1912)
- Fassy v. Jacobs (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
- Johnson v. Phœnix Bridge Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- Gittleman v. . Feltman (N.Y. 1908)
- Haskell v. Moran (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Marriott v. C., S. & H. Railroad (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division 1904)
- Licausi v. Ashworth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Zukowski v. Armour (Ill. App. Ct. 1903)
- Licausi v. Ashworth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Tilley v. Coykendall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- Wigton & Whitham v. Smith (Neb. 1899)
- Haggarty v. Strong (S.D. 1898)
- Mutual Brewing Co. v. New York & College Point Ferry Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1897)
- William H. Glover Co. v. Rollins (Me. 1895)
- Munzinger v. Courier Co. (New York Supreme Court 1894)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The order to amend in this case authorizes the striking out of the name of the defendant and the insertion of the names of three persons as defendants in lieu thereof. Its effect is to continue the action against other and different parties than the one named, thus substituting a causé of action *24 with, new and other defendants. Such an amendment is not we think, authorized by any provision of the Code or any of the adjudged eases. Section 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not cover any such case. While full authority is conferred for adding or striking out the name of a person or a party, or correcting a mistake in such name, it does not sanction an - entire change of name of the defendant by the substitution of another or entirely different defendants. The authorities relating to the question are fully considered in the opinions of the General Term, and it is not necessary to examine them upon this appeal. Although some cases are cited which are supposed to sanction such a rule, they are not weH founded and have not received the approval of this court. The cases of Bassett v. Fish (75 N. Y. 304) and Shaw v. Cock (78 id. 194), without citing other cases, are directly in point and settle the question adversely to the .claim of the respondent’s counsel. Upon the authority of these decisions the General Term erred, and the order reversing the order of the Special Term should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.