
    DIEHL v. BECK et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 7, 1901.)
    Pleading—Supplemental Answer—Filing—Denial.
    A motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer was properly denied, where the proposed pleading was not filed with the motion.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by Balthasar Diehl against David Beck and another. From an order denying defendant’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
    Jacob Rieger, for appellants.
    Frank Barker, for respondent.
   .PER CURIAM.

The defendant neglected to serve with his motion papers the proposed pleading, and this, among others, may have been the reason for the denial of the motion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  