Elevator Automatic Signal Co. v. Bok

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Elevator Automatic Signal Co. v. Bok

159 N.Y.S. 13

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 16, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 13 (Elevator Automatic Signal Co. v. Bok) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elevator Automatic Signal Co. v. Bok, 159 N.Y.S. 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

COHALAN, J.

This action was brought in replevin, and the complaint alleges that on the 1st day of July, 1914, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of certain corporation personal property.

[1] The respective defendants deny in their amended answers material allegations of the complaint, and they severally set up therein certain defenses and counterclaims, to which replies were properly interposed. The pleadings, as they stood on the trial, raised issues of fact, which should have been tried by the jury; yet before any testimony had been taken the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Apart from the fact that the denials raised issues of fact, the liens set up in the counterclaims were properly interposed as a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant Bok alleges in his counterclaim that by the seizure by the sheriff of certain illuminators mentioned in the complaint, he has been deprived of his lien thereon, and the security afforded thereby, to his damage in the sum of $941.42.

[2] The transaction upon which this defendant predicates a recovery is a contract under which money was advanced to the plaintiff, and which money was used to create and manufacture the' chattels replevied, and for the repayment of which it was agreed that he was to have a lien. The defendant Joffe asserts a lien on other effects, and in his counterclaim asks for a money judgment in the sum of $300 for legal services and for disbursements made by him to and for the use of the plaintiff corporation. The services rendered and the disbursements made by these defendants related to the subject-matter of the action, occurred prior to the commencement thereof, and constituted valid counterclaims. Scognamillo v. Passarelli, 210 N. Y. 550, 105 N. E. 199.

It follows that the order appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs.

GUY, J., concurs. BIJUR, J., concurs in the result.

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

COHALAN, J.

This action was brought in replevin, and the complaint alleges that on the 1st day of July, 1914, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of certain corporation personal property.

[1] The respective defendants deny in their amended answers material allegations of the complaint, and they severally set up therein certain defenses and counterclaims, to which replies were properly interposed. The pleadings, as they stood on the trial, raised issues of fact, which should have been tried by the jury; yet before any testimony had been taken the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Apart from the fact that the denials raised issues of fact, the liens set up in the counterclaims were properly interposed as a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant Bok alleges in his counterclaim that by the seizure by the sheriff of certain illuminators mentioned in the complaint, he has been deprived of his lien thereon, and the security afforded thereby, to his damage in the sum of $941.42.

[2] The transaction upon which this defendant predicates a recovery is a contract under which money was advanced to the plaintiff, and which money was used to create and manufacture the' chattels replevied, and for the repayment of which it was agreed that he was to have a lien. The defendant Joffe asserts a lien on other effects, and in his counterclaim asks for a money judgment in the sum of $300 for legal services and for disbursements made by him to and for the use of the plaintiff corporation. The services rendered and the disbursements made by these defendants related to the subject-matter of the action, occurred prior to the commencement thereof, and constituted valid counterclaims. Scognamillo v. Passarelli, 210 N. Y. 550, 105 N. E. 199.

It follows that the order appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs.

GUY, J., concurs. BIJUR, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elevator-automatic-signal-co-v-bok-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack