Anhalt v. Englander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anhalt v. Englander

254 A.D. 885, 6 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8172

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 885 (Anhalt v. Englander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anhalt v. Englander, 254 A.D. 885, 6 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the causes of action set forth are barred by the Statute of Limitations affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent and vote for reversal, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff’s right of action arose out of the contract determining the respective rights of the parties to the sum in question and at the time the money was paid over to defendant in accordance therewith and with plaintiff’s acquiescence. Plaintiff does not allege that this contract was the result of fraud nor does he seek to rescind it. The contract defines the rights and obligations of the parties and is the basis upon which plaintiff seeks recovery. (Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N. Y. 259.)

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

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the causes of action set forth are barred by the Statute of Limitations affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent and vote for reversal, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff’s right of action arose out of the contract determining the respective rights of the parties to the sum in question and at the time the money was paid over to defendant in accordance therewith and with plaintiff’s acquiescence. Plaintiff does not allege that this contract was the result of fraud nor does he seek to rescind it. The contract defines the rights and obligations of the parties and is the basis upon which plaintiff seeks recovery. (Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N. Y. 259.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 885, 6 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anhalt-v-englander-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack