Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc.

174 A.D. 918

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1916·Published

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.

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

Pincite

174 A.D. 918 (Elias v. Paragon Films, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related