Stokes v. . Stokes
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 15,1894, which reversed, as to the counterclaim, a judgment entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and a counterclaim of the defendant, and granted a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 15,1894, which reversed, as to the counterclaim, a judgment entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and a counterclaim of the defendant, and granted a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The construction of the contract by the General Term was erroneous. (Russell v. Allerton, 108 N. Y. 288; Schouler on Bailments, § 249; Donil v. Eaton, 35 Mich. 302; Slocum v. Closson, 1…
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
This action was brought to restrain the defendant from prosecuting certain actions against the plaintiff upon certain promissory notes, and for a decree adjudging that the defendant holds certain bonds as collateral security only for the payment of such notes. The defendant’s answer set up by way of counterclaim that under a contract dated August 18, 1891, between the parties, he was entitled to have certain additional bonds deposited with him as collateral security, to be held by him pursuant to the provisions of the contract.
Upon the trial the plaintiff offered no evidence and requested…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Winne v. . WinneNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Stokes v. . StokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Mahaney v. . CarrNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Levin v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Wadick v. . MacENew York Court of Appeals · 1908
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.