Collins v. Simon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtAdel, J.
The order denying the motion to strike out the first complete defense in the amended answer should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
The defense is good if the payment into court was not collusive. Plaintiff has received satisfaction .from the tenant, and to permit her to recover also from the landlord is to violate the primary rule that the law does not permit a double satisfaction for a single injury. (Milks v. McIver, 264 N. Y. 267, 270.) There may be several suits and recoveries, but only one satisfaction. (Gray v. Fogarty, 237 App. Div. 855.)
When the money was paid…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Barrett v. . the Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Milks v. McIverNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Livingston v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Russell v. . McCallNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Parks v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Goines v. Pennsylvania RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
- Liebman v. County of WestchesterNew York Supreme Court · 1972
- Sarine v. MaherNew York Supreme Court · 1946
- Bundt v. EmbroNew York Supreme Court · 1965
- Bernstein v. SiegelNew York Supreme Court · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.