Flateau v. Beers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flateau v. Beers

159 N.Y.S. 1113

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

DecidedMay 31, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 1113 (Flateau v. Beers) 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

Flateau v. Beers, 159 N.Y.S. 1113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PENDLETON, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the complaint, with $20 costs, entered on a decision granting defendants’ motion, made at the opening of the trial, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The action is to recover money paid under duress. The gravamen of the complaint is the duress exercised by defendant Luddington and the payment to him by reason thereof. All the allegations as to the contract witli defendant Beers are by way of introduction and explanation. No charge of duress is made against defendant Beers, or payment to him, and as to him no cause of action is shown. Judgment should be reversed, with $15 costs, as to defendant Luddington, and a new trial granted; as to defendant Beers, the judgment should be affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

PENDLETON, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the complaint, with $20 costs, entered on a decision granting defendants’ motion, made at the opening of the trial, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The action is to recover money paid under duress. The gravamen of the complaint is the duress exercised by defendant Luddington and the payment to him by reason thereof. All the allegations as to the contract witli defendant Beers are by way of introduction and explanation. No charge of duress is made against defendant Beers, or payment to him, and as to him no cause of action is shown. Judgment should be reversed, with $15 costs, as to defendant Luddington, and a new trial granted; as to defendant Beers, the judgment should be affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 1113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flateau-v-beers-nyappdiv-1916.