Agan v. File

New York Supreme Court

Agan v. File

32 N.Y.S. 1066, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 418, 84 Hun 607

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 1066 (Agan v. File) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agan v. File, 32 N.Y.S. 1066, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 418, 84 Hun 607 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

HERRICK, J.

I think there is evidence in this case to show that, prior to the year 1887, there was an outstanding claim or account between Warren B. Agan and Lyman B. Agan; that in February, 1887, the parties, upon examination of their accounts, differed as to the amount due, and finally agreed to adjust or compromise it at $1,200. There being evidence of such facts, we should not disturb the findings of the referee in respect thereto. It seems to me that the settlement or agreement upon that sum was the foundation of a new cause of action in favor of Warren B. against Lyman B. Agan. We are not at liberty to go back of the settlement to determine whether in truth and fact Warren B. had at that time a just and legal claim against Lyman. Barnes v. Ryan, 66 Hun, 170, 21 N. Y. Supp. 127, and cases cited. If it did constitute a cause of action, that cause of action only accrued at the time of the settlement; that is, February, 1887. And six years had not elapsed when the claim was referred; consequently, it is not barred by the statute of limitations. While I am inclined to think that the referee erred in some of his findings of fact,—for instance, there does not appear to be positive evidence that the lease of the house to Warren B. was ever delivered to him,—still I do not think those errors affect the result, and it seems to me that in the main the referee’s opinion is correct, and that the judgment should be affirmed, without any opinion. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERRICK, J.

I think there is evidence in this case to show that, prior to the year 1887, there was an outstanding claim or account between Warren B. Agan and Lyman B. Agan; that in February, 1887, the parties, upon examination of their accounts, differed as to the amount due, and finally agreed to adjust or compromise it at $1,200. There being evidence of such facts, we should not disturb the findings of the referee in respect thereto. It seems to me that the settlement or agreement upon that sum was the foundation of a new cause of action in favor of Warren B. against Lyman B. Agan. We are not at liberty to go back of the settlement to determine whether in truth and fact Warren B. had at that time a just and legal claim against Lyman. Barnes v. Ryan, 66 Hun, 170, 21 N. Y. Supp. 127, and cases cited. If it did constitute a cause of action, that cause of action only accrued at the time of the settlement; that is, February, 1887. And six years had not elapsed when the claim was referred; consequently, it is not barred by the statute of limitations. While I am inclined to think that the referee erred in some of his findings of fact,—for instance, there does not appear to be positive evidence that the lease of the house to Warren B. was ever delivered to him,—still I do not think those errors affect the result, and it seems to me that in the main the referee’s opinion is correct, and that the judgment should be affirmed, without any opinion. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 1066, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 418, 84 Hun 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agan-v-file-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack