Coit v. . Stewart

New York Court of Appeals

Coit v. . Stewart

50 N.Y. 17, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 381

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 50 N.Y. 17 (Coit v. . Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coit v. . Stewart, 50 N.Y. 17, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 381 (N.Y. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Grover, J.

The counter-claim set up in the fourth defence was founded upon contract. The allegation in substance is that the plaintiff, in consideration of a specified reward therefor to be paid him by the defendant, undertook to complete the negotiations for the purchase by the defendant of certain securities, and promised the defendant that he would account for and pay over all moneys and deliver all securities belonging to the defendant to him, which he had refused to do, and had converted to his own use. Hpon these facts the defendant had his election to sue for the breach of the contract or for the conversion of the securities. The statement in his defence shows that he has elected the former. (Conaughty v. Nichols, 42 N. Y., 83.) Having made his election to proceed for the breach of the contract, it may be interposed as a counter claim against the notes counted upon by the plaintiff. The order of the General Term reversing that of the Special Term sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff to that defence and ordering judgment for the defendant thereon, was right and should be affirmed, if an appeal therefrom as an order could be taken to this court. But it is not appealable to this court. If the plaintiff had permitted judgment to be entered thereon, it could have been reviewed by this *19 court, upon an appeal from a final judgment in the action. (Ferris v. Aspinwall, decided by this court in March, 1871, opinion by Allen, J., not reported.) The counsel for the appellant cites Rogers v. Wheeler (43 N. Y., 598) as an authority, holding the order appealable. An examination of the case shows that no such question was raised, discussed or determined. The question was doubtless waived by counsel, and as the litigation could be substantially terminated by deciding the questions presented by the demurrer, the court passed upon them. There is no conflict between this case and Ferris v. Aspinwall. The order is not appealable to this court, and the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Grover, J.

The counter-claim set up in the fourth defence was founded upon contract. The allegation in substance is that the plaintiff, in consideration of a specified reward therefor to be paid him by the defendant, undertook to complete the negotiations for the purchase by the defendant of certain securities, and promised the defendant that he would account for and pay over all moneys and deliver all securities belonging to the defendant to him, which he had refused to do, and had converted to his own use. Hpon these facts the defendant had his election to sue for the breach of the contract or for the conversion of the securities. The statement in his defence shows that he has elected the former. (Conaughty v. Nichols, 42 N. Y., 83.) Having made his election to proceed for the breach of the contract, it may be interposed as a counter claim against the notes counted upon by the plaintiff. The order of the General Term reversing that of the Special Term sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff to that defence and ordering judgment for the defendant thereon, was right and should be affirmed, if an appeal therefrom as an order could be taken to this court. But it is not appealable to this court. If the plaintiff had permitted judgment to be entered thereon, it could have been reviewed by this *19 court, upon an appeal from a final judgment in the action. (Ferris v. Aspinwall, decided by this court in March, 1871, opinion by Allen, J., not reported.) The counsel for the appellant cites Rogers v. Wheeler (43 N. Y., 598) as an authority, holding the order appealable. An examination of the case shows that no such question was raised, discussed or determined. The question was doubtless waived by counsel, and as the litigation could be substantially terminated by deciding the questions presented by the demurrer, the court passed upon them. There is no conflict between this case and Ferris v. Aspinwall. The order is not appealable to this court, and the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.Y. 17, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coit-v-stewart-ny-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack