Legal Opinion

J. Rose & Co. v. Unity Stove Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1955PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIrving H. Saypol, J.

The plaintiff moves, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and section 476 of the Civil Practice Act, to strike out the answer and for judgment, and pursuant to rule 109 to strike out the counterclaim for insufficiency. The action is brought to recover a balance due upon the purchase price of gas ranges sold and delivered to the defendant. The claim is admitted. Although the counterclaim is stated in equity and seeks damages in an amount greater than the plaintiff’s claim, it is nevertheless invalid. This counterclaim is an action within the purview of subdivision 3 of rule…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. John D. Park & Sons Co. v. National Wholesale Druggists' Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Locker v. American Tobacco Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  3. Miller v. SpitzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  4. Alexander's Department Stores, Inc. v. Ohrbach's Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
  5. Salt Springs National Bank v. HitchcockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. AbramsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  2. J. Rose & Co. v. Unity Stove Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API