Haskell v. Miller
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
We find nothing in the instrument pleaded as a defense nor in the facts stipulated to bring the case without the rule applicable to general releases. It is well settled that general words of release are deemed to be limited by a recital of a particular claim, obligation or controversy where there is nothing on the face of the instrument indicating that matters other than those specifically referred to were intended to be discharged. (Mitchell v. Mitchell, 170 App. Div. 452, 456.)
Here the particular controversy recited was the stock account. No mention whatever is made of the cotton account in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mitchell v. MitchellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
3Cited by16 opinions
- Mangini v. McClurgNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Vines v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Arthur A. Kelcey v. Tankers Company Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Boll v. Sharp & Dohme, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
- Simon v. SimonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.