Davidson v. Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davidson v. Davidson

52 N.Y.S. 7, 29 A.D. 629

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

DecidedMay 20, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 52 N.Y.S. 7 (Davidson v. Davidson) 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

Davidson v. Davidson, 52 N.Y.S. 7, 29 A.D. 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PER GURI AM.

Judgment was properly directed upon the pleadings. The action was brought upon a stipulation and to recover amounts agreed to be paid, and was, therefore, upon a new contract. The consideration for that contract was the withholding of remedies to enforce the judgment referred to in the complaint. ' Nothing in the stipulation set up in the answer constituted a defense. It was agreed that the motion referred to in the stipulation should be withdrawn on certain conditions. It was withdrawn, and the conditions were not complied with. There was nothing in the stipulation that prevented a renewal of the motion to punish for contempt in case the payments were not made under the stipulation, but the defendant bound himself to the payments in view of the motion being withdrawn at the time at which it was withdrawn.

The order of the court below directing judgment was plainly correct, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER GURI AM.

Judgment was properly directed upon the pleadings. The action was brought upon a stipulation and to recover amounts agreed to be paid, and was, therefore, upon a new contract. The consideration for that contract was the withholding of remedies to enforce the judgment referred to in the complaint. ' Nothing in the stipulation set up in the answer constituted a defense. It was agreed that the motion referred to in the stipulation should be withdrawn on certain conditions. It was withdrawn, and the conditions were not complied with. There was nothing in the stipulation that prevented a renewal of the motion to punish for contempt in case the payments were not made under the stipulation, but the defendant bound himself to the payments in view of the motion being withdrawn at the time at which it was withdrawn.

The order of the court below directing judgment was plainly correct, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.Y.S. 7, 29 A.D. 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-davidson-nyappdiv-1898.