Doyle v. Haven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doyle v. Haven

262 A.D. 943, 29 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6551

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 943 (Doyle v. Haven) 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

Doyle v. Haven, 262 A.D. 943, 29 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified on the law by inserting a provision that the third, fourth and fifth causes of action be dismissed and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The complaint contains nine causes of action and seeks to recover upon different theories the proceeds of four checks delivered by plaintiff to Charles J. Warner, who since such delivery has died. The defendants moved to strike out the first seven causes of action on the ground that the allegations of material facts in each of such causes are contradictory of and inconsistent with the facts alleged in some of the other causes. A motion addressed to the complaint upon the ground that inconsistent causes of action are therein pleaded may not be made. (Ikle v. Ikle, 257 App. Div. 635; Coron v. Lincks, 259 id. 924.) The alleged mistakes set forth in the third, fourth and fifth causes of action are not sufficient to warrant the revocation of a gift. (Pickslay v. Starr, 149 N. Y. 432, 437, 438.) [944]*944All concur. (The order denies motion of defendants to dismiss the second amended complaint in an action to recover money of which plaintiff claims he was deprived by fraudulent acts, negligence and misrepresentation.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Order modified on the law by inserting a provision that the third, fourth and fifth causes of action be dismissed and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The complaint contains nine causes of action and seeks to recover upon different theories the proceeds of four checks delivered by plaintiff to Charles J. Warner, who since such delivery has died. The defendants moved to strike out the first seven causes of action on the ground that the allegations of material facts in each of such causes are contradictory of and inconsistent with the facts alleged in some of the other causes. A motion addressed to the complaint upon the ground that inconsistent causes of action are therein pleaded may not be made. (Ikle v. Ikle, 257 App. Div. 635; Coron v. Lincks, 259 id. 924.) The alleged mistakes set forth in the third, fourth and fifth causes of action are not sufficient to warrant the revocation of a gift. (Pickslay v. Starr, 149 N. Y. 432, 437, 438.) [944]*944All concur. (The order denies motion of defendants to dismiss the second amended complaint in an action to recover money of which plaintiff claims he was deprived by fraudulent acts, negligence and misrepresentation.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 943, 29 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-haven-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack