Holland Trust Co. v. . Sutherland
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment entered March 13,1902, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint and dismissed the complaint. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material,, are stated in the dissenting opinion. The complaint states a good cause of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment entered March 13,1902, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint and dismissed the complaint. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material,, are stated in the dissenting opinion. The complaint states a good cause of action. (Coe v. Beckwith, 31 Barb. 339 ; Curtus v. Candler, 6 Madd. 123 ; Dimmock v. Bixby, 20 Pick. 374; R. T. Works v. Kelly, 88 N. Y. 234.) The contention of the Appellate Division that “…
1Dissent
Cullen, J."
(dissenting). The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was trustee under a mortgage executed by a water company in the state of Ohio to secure the payment of certain coupon bonds, and, as such, assignee of certain water rents recei /able by the water company; that the water company remitted to the plaintiff certain moneys, nearly all of which were the proceeds of such water rents, for the payment of the coupons on said bonds which were then about to fall due; that before the actual payment of the coupons to the holders thereof the defendant brought an action against the water…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coe v. BeckwithNew York Supreme Court · 1860