Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

201 A.D. 698

Rolle v. Rolle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1922-06-16

Appeal by the defendant, Edward F. Rolle, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 20th day of April, 1922, as denies defendant’s motion to serve and file an amended answer setting up the facts contained in defendant’s proposed answer by way of counterclaim.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1952

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-06-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Laughlin, J. (dissenting):

¶1I am of opinion that the amendment of the phraseology of former section 1770 of the Code of Civil Procedure in re-enacting it in section 1168 of the Civil Practice Act was not intended to effect and did not effect an enlargement of the jurisdiction of the court in matrimonial actions, and I, therefore, dissent on Crouch v. Crouch (193 App. Div. 221).

¶2Order so far as appealed from reversed and motion granted.

/201/ad/698 · .json · Public domain