Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc.

174 A.D. 918

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D. 918 (Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc.) 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

Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc., 174 A.D. 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

The second counterclaim does not state a cause of action, and the demurrer to it should be sustained. (Buhler Co. v. New York Dock Co., 170 App. Div. 486.) The demurrer to the first counterclaim should be overruled, as the defendant may offset the sum properly paid by it to finish the work pursuant to the contract. The order is modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

The second counterclaim does not state a cause of action, and the demurrer to it should be sustained. (Buhler Co. v. New York Dock Co., 170 App. Div. 486.) The demurrer to the first counterclaim should be overruled, as the defendant may offset the sum properly paid by it to finish the work pursuant to the contract. The order is modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D. 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elias-v-paragon-films-inc-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack