Legal Opinion

Murray Oil Products Co. v. Hanover Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 24, 1941PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The fourth and sixth affirmative defenses should not have been stricken out. In answer to the claim of plaintiff that the amount sued for was paid under protest, the defendant has attempted to show by these defenses that the money advanced by plaintiff for the increased premiums was paid voluntarily and without objection or protest and that there was no mistake of the parties which would justify the recovery by plaintiff of the money so paid. While defendant under its general denial could have presented, in all probability, proofs to sustain its position in this regard, nevertheless, the…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Caristo Construction Corp. v. Diners Financial Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Natale v. MazzukiNew York Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Wenger v. Carledjon Realty Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Schwartz v. Compania Azucarera Vertientes-Camaguey De CubaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API