Brown v. Coleman

New York Supreme Court

Brown v. Coleman

8 N.Y.S. 808, 62 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 501, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 347, 55 Hun 501, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1794

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 N.Y.S. 808 (Brown v. Coleman) 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

Brown v. Coleman, 8 N.Y.S. 808, 62 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 501, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 347, 55 Hun 501, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1794 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

By section 502 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is provided that, when an assignee of a claim sues upon it, a demand existing at the time of the assignment may be allowed as a counter-claim to the amount of the plaintiff’s demand. The case shows that the plaintiff is the assignee of a claim for rent. The defendant sets up a counter-claim for a breach of the contract under which the premises were leased. The court charged that the assignee stood in the place of his assignor for all damages sustained by the tenant on account of a breach of the landlord’s (assignor’s) agreement. This was erroneous. When the jury allowed a counter-claim to the extent of the plaintiff’s demand, the court should have told the jury to find for the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff’s attorney was the assignor of the claim has no relevancy in this respect. In the case of Patton v. Baking Powder Co., 114 N. Y. 1, 20 N. E. Rep. 621, the claim of the plaintiff, although sued as assignee, “ was his personally, and not as assignee. ” He assumed to perform the contract assigned to him which made him liable for damages for a breach of the contract. The judgment of the county court should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide event.

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

Barnard, P. J.

By section 502 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is provided that, when an assignee of a claim sues upon it, a demand existing at the time of the assignment may be allowed as a counter-claim to the amount of the plaintiff’s demand. The case shows that the plaintiff is the assignee of a claim for rent. The defendant sets up a counter-claim for a breach of the contract under which the premises were leased. The court charged that the assignee stood in the place of his assignor for all damages sustained by the tenant on account of a breach of the landlord’s (assignor’s) agreement. This was erroneous. When the jury allowed a counter-claim to the extent of the plaintiff’s demand, the court should have told the jury to find for the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff’s attorney was the assignor of the claim has no relevancy in this respect. In the case of Patton v. Baking Powder Co., 114 N. Y. 1, 20 N. E. Rep. 621, the claim of the plaintiff, although sued as assignee, “ was his personally, and not as assignee. ” He assumed to perform the contract assigned to him which made him liable for damages for a breach of the contract. The judgment of the county court should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y.S. 808, 62 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 501, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 347, 55 Hun 501, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-coleman-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack