Legal Opinion
Unger v. Hirsch
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided January 27, 1943PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBoneparth, J.
This is a motion by defendant under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment on the pleadings.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, as a pledge or token of an agreement to marry, delivered a ring to the defendant; that, by mutual consent, the agreement or contract of marriage was ‘ ‘ abandoned and cancelled, ’ ’ and that the defendant refused to return the ring on plaintiff’s demand.
Defendant urges that the action is barred by section 61-b of the Civil Practice Act, added by chapter 263 of the Laws of 1935. This section reads, in part, as follows: “ The rights of *382action…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Woollcott v. . ShubertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Dean v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Andie v. KaplanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Sorenson v. Keesey Hosiery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Rodgers v. . RodgersNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Goldstein v. RosenthalCivil Court of the City of New York · 1968
- Easley v. NealNew York Supreme Court · 1952
- Nosonowitz v. KahnCity of New York Municipal Court · 1951
- Spitz v. MaxwellNew York Supreme Court · 1945