Delaney v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
Reargument granted on application of respondent (plaintiff), after reversal of an interlocutory judgment sustaining a demurrer to defendant’s counterclaim.
1Opinion of the CourtPutnam, J.
The court below sustained the demurrer on the ground that plaintiff’s action was not brought upon a contract, and hence the cause of action set up in the answer did not constitute legal counterclaims, as held in Furber v. McCarthy (Sup.) 7 N. Y. Supp. 613. When this case was first before this court, our attention was chiefly devoted to the position taken by the learned justice at special term, and we reached the conclusion that plaintiff’s claim upon undertaking set out in the complaint was a cause of action upon contract, to which a counterclaim could be legally interposed. But in our…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Douglass v. Phenix InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Marshall v. . MeechNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Furber v. McCarthyNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Hammond v. EarleNew York Supreme Court · 1880
- Boyd v. McDonaldNew York Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bevins v. AlbroNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Barry v. Third Avenue RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Eells v. DumaryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Gibbs v. PrindleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Sterne v. TalbottNew York Supreme Court · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.