Chandler v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

City of New York Municipal Court

Chandler v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

34 Misc. 808, 68 N.Y.S. 398

DecidedFebruary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Misc. 808 (Chandler v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chandler v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 34 Misc. 808, 68 N.Y.S. 398 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Conlan, J.

The' fourth paragraph of the defendant’s answer, which was made the subject of the demurrer, is in the following language: “ For a third, further and separate defense herein de[809]*809fendant alleges: That on the 29th day of September, 1900, the plaintiff herein, by Joseph L. Prager, her attorney, began an action in the Supreme Court against this defendant for the same cause of action alleged in the complaint herein, and said prior action being still at issue and undisposed of, the defendant pleads the same in bar of this action.” We think the overruling of the demurrer thereto, on the ground that it is insufficient in law upon the face thereof, was a correct determination of the question presented, and one that does not call for an interference by the court upon appeal.

Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Conlan, J.

The' fourth paragraph of the defendant’s answer, which was made the subject of the demurrer, is in the following language: “ For a third, further and separate defense herein de[809]*809fendant alleges: That on the 29th day of September, 1900, the plaintiff herein, by Joseph L. Prager, her attorney, began an action in the Supreme Court against this defendant for the same cause of action alleged in the complaint herein, and said prior action being still at issue and undisposed of, the defendant pleads the same in bar of this action.” We think the overruling of the demurrer thereto, on the ground that it is insufficient in law upon the face thereof, was a correct determination of the question presented, and one that does not call for an interference by the court upon appeal.

Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 808, 68 N.Y.S. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nynyccityct-1901.