Candel v. Bankler

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Candel v. Bankler

140 N.Y.S. 373

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 140 N.Y.S. 373 (Candel v. Bankler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Candel v. Bankler, 140 N.Y.S. 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

The pleadings were oral. Plaintiff pleaded “injuries to person.” The defendant did not demur, but pleaded a general denial, thus conceding that a cause of action was stated. In that condition of the record, even assuming.that a judge of the Municipal Court has the right to dismiss on the opening of counsél, there was nothing in the opening in this case to warrant a dismissal thereon. Backman v. Rogers, 153 App. Div. 299, 138 N. Y. Supp. 29. No comment is made upon the fact that this action is brought against two persons and that they are designated as copartners, since that point is not involved on this appeal, and a good cause of action must be assumed to have been stated as at least against the one defendant charged with negligence.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

The pleadings were oral. Plaintiff pleaded “injuries to person.” The defendant did not demur, but pleaded a general denial, thus conceding that a cause of action was stated. In that condition of the record, even assuming.that a judge of the Municipal Court has the right to dismiss on the opening of counsél, there was nothing in the opening in this case to warrant a dismissal thereon. Backman v. Rogers, 153 App. Div. 299, 138 N. Y. Supp. 29. No comment is made upon the fact that this action is brought against two persons and that they are designated as copartners, since that point is not involved on this appeal, and a good cause of action must be assumed to have been stated as at least against the one defendant charged with negligence.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.Y.S. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candel-v-bankler-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack