Ludington v. Slauson
The Superior Court of New York City
Demurrer to a reply. The action is to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants, by separate answers, set up a counterclaim, to which the plaintiff served a reply. The defendants demurred to the reply for insufficiency.
1Opinion of the Court
Monell, Ch. J.
It is clear, I think, that the counter-claim set up in the answer, arises upon two different and perfectly inconsistent causes of action.
It is alleged, that prior to the execution and delivery of the deed, the plaintiff “ stated and represented” to the defendant Slauson, that the premises were free and clear of all incumbrances and other charges. That relying upon such statements and representations, she agreed to purchase the premises. That the deed contains a covenant against incumbrances, &c. That such statements were and are untrue, and were known to the plaintiff to be…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cobb v. FrazeeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Livingston v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1853