Windsor Const. Co. v. Ruland
New York Supreme Court
Action by the Windsor Construction Company against Irving Ru-land and others. On plaintiff’s demurrer to defendants’ separate defense of the statute of frauds.
1Opinion of the CourtPendleton, J.
[1,2] This is a trial of two issues of law raised by plaintiff’s demurrer to the separate defense of the statute of frauds in the answer of defendant Ruland and in the answers of the defendants Griswold and Brush. The separate defense is defective in substance. The allegations of the complaint, not being denied in the separate defense, must be taken as true, and it appears therefrom that defendants’ promise was an independent original promise, quite different from the Forty-Eirst Street Realty Company’s promise, founded on a new consideration moving to defendants, and therefore not within the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- White v. . RintoulNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Douglas v. . CoonleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- A. Schwoerer & Sons, Inc. v. StoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
- Schattman v. Maze Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Berg v. BatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.