Jacobowitz v. Herson
New York Court of Appeals
The counterclaim, also pleaded as the second defense in defendant-respondent’s amended answer, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Matter of Burke, 191 N. Y. 437; Moore v. Eadie, 245 N. Y. 166.) The counterclaim as pleaded sets forth a good cause of action. (Flanson Realty Cory. v. Workers’ Unity House, Inc., 229 App. Div. 179; Matter of Burke, 191 N. Y. 437; Moore v. Eadie, 245 N. Y. 166; Matter of Fenster, 234 App.
Read the full summary
The counterclaim, also pleaded as the second defense in defendant-respondent’s amended answer, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Matter of Burke, 191 N. Y. 437; Moore v. Eadie, 245 N. Y. 166.) The counterclaim as pleaded sets forth a good cause of action. (Flanson Realty Cory. v. Workers’ Unity House, Inc., 229 App. Div. 179; Matter of Burke, 191 N. Y. 437; Moore v. Eadie, 245 N. Y. 166; Matter of Fenster, 234 App. Div. 868.) The counterclaim was properly interposed in this action. (Heyward v. Maynard, 119 App. Div. 66.)
1Opinion of the Court
Crane, Ch. J.
On the 4th day of April, 1930, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement to submit to arbitration a claim regarding an advance made to the Spring Valley Butter and Egg Company of $3,300, the arbitration to be before the Arbitration Society of New York. Pending the decision of the arbitrators the defendant was to leave with Charles J. Herson, an attorney at law, in escrow certain promissory notes for the said sum of $3,300 which were to be returned to Leon Spilky, one of the plaintiffs, if the decision was in his favor.
Thereafter, and pursuant to the terms of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Crouse v. . McVickarNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Ross v. . WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Mahoney v. State InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Johnson v. WellsSupreme Court of Florida · 1916
- In Re the Arbitration Between Burke & CornNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Dictograph Products Company, Inc. v. Sonotone Corporation, Emil Henry Greibach and S. Michael PinelesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Griffith v. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Karppinen v. Karl Kiefer MacHine Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Matter of HoldenNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Alleghany Corporation v. KirbyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.