Edmund Valk & James Pels Co. v. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edmund Valk & James Pels Co. v. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.

263 A.D. 812, 32 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 1941·Published

Opinion

Order modified by providing as to item “ 1 ” of the notice of motion that defendant may replead its counterclaim against James Pels Co., Inc., making appropriate allegations that said corporation and James Pels, N. V., were regarded by the parties to the contracts as one and the same corporation; by denying item “ 4” of the notice of motion; and by giving leave to replead the matter set forth in item “ 6 ” of the notice of motion, and, as so modified, affirmed. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Dore. J., concurs in the modification but dissents from the determination made to the extent that he votes also to deny item “ 2 ” of the notice of motion relating to the first complete defense to the second cause of action. (See Staten Island, M. R. R. Co. v. Hinchliffe, 170 N. Y. 473, 481; Morgan Munitions Co. v. Studebaker Corp., 226 id. 94, 98.) Settle order on notice.

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

Order modified by providing as to item “ 1 ” of the notice of motion that defendant may replead its counterclaim against James Pels Co., Inc., making appropriate allegations that said corporation and James Pels, N. V., were regarded by the parties to the contracts as one and the same corporation; by denying item “ 4” of the notice of motion; and by giving leave to replead the matter set forth in item “ 6 ” of the notice of motion, and, as so modified, affirmed. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Dore. J., concurs in the modification but dissents from the determination made to the extent that he votes also to deny item “ 2 ” of the notice of motion relating to the first complete defense to the second cause of action. (See Staten Island, M. R. R. Co. v. Hinchliffe, 170 N. Y. 473, 481; Morgan Munitions Co. v. Studebaker Corp., 226 id. 94, 98.) Settle order on notice.

Edmund Valk & James Pels Co. v. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp., 263 A.D. 812, 32 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

263 A.D. 812 (Edmund Valk & James Pels Co. v. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related