Bones v. Ridgewood Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bones v. Ridgewood Savings Bank

243 A.D. 790, 278 N.Y.S. 166

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 790 (Bones v. Ridgewood Savings Bank) 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

Bones v. Ridgewood Savings Bank, 243 A.D. 790, 278 N.Y.S. 166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is an existing final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, rendered on the merits, determining the same cause of action between the parties, entered pursuant to rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The plaintiff here is bound by the discovery proceeding instituted by him as administrator in the Surrogate’s Court because of the defendant’s privity to both the petitioner and the respondent in the Surrogate’s Court. (Hughes v. U. P. Lines, 119 N. Y. 423; Nichols v. MacLean, 101 id. 526.) If, as the plaintiff here contends, the question of the authority of the defendant bank to deposit the proceeds of the drafts which are the subject-matter of this action to the joint account of the intestate and the respondent in the Surrogate’s Court proceeding was not an issue in the discovery proceeding, it should have been litigated, since it was necessarily involved. (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 N. Y. 304.) Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order dismissing the complaint on the ground that there is an existing final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, rendered on the merits, determining the same cause of action between the parties, entered pursuant to rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The plaintiff here is bound by the discovery proceeding instituted by him as administrator in the Surrogate’s Court because of the defendant’s privity to both the petitioner and the respondent in the Surrogate’s Court. (Hughes v. U. P. Lines, 119 N. Y. 423; Nichols v. MacLean, 101 id. 526.) If, as the plaintiff here contends, the question of the authority of the defendant bank to deposit the proceeds of the drafts which are the subject-matter of this action to the joint account of the intestate and the respondent in the Surrogate’s Court proceeding was not an issue in the discovery proceeding, it should have been litigated, since it was necessarily involved. (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 N. Y. 304.) Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 790, 278 N.Y.S. 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bones-v-ridgewood-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack