Legal Opinion

Walter v. Carroll

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1913PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Action by one Walter against one Carroll. Defendant moves for ■judgment on her counterclaim. - Denied as premature.

1Opinion of the CourtBenedict, J.

This motion for judgment in favor of the defendant on her counterclaim because of plaintiff’s failure to reply thereto is premature. The defendant’s demand is much less in amount than that of the plaintiff, and the two causes of action are wholly discqnnected. Until the issues arising upon the complaint have been tried, it cannot be ascertained whether the defendant will be entitled to an af? firmative judgment against the plaintiff, or whether her admittedly valid claim will constitute merely an offset to plaintiff’s demand.

The motion must therefore be denied, without prejudice to renewal…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crompton v. SeaichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
  2. Crompton v. SeaichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Stratton v. GrahamNew York Supreme Court · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API