Fuller v. Read

The Superior Court of New York City

Fuller v. Read

6 Duer 697

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedFebruary 15, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Duer 697 (Fuller v. Read) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Read, 6 Duer 697 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Fuller having a cause of action against Read, sued him; Read, after that, sued Fuller on a demand which fell due after Fuller’s suit was brought, and Fuller, in [698]*698Ms answer set up as a counter-claim, the cause of action on which his suit was brought.

Held, that Fuller, in that stage of the suits, could not he compelled to elect to prosecute his claim in only one of such suits, and to abide by such election. That the court should not obstruct the orderly course of proceeding in either action, until both were at issue on the merits.

If it then appeared that the merits of both could be fully tried, and full relief given in any one suit, the proceedings might properly be stayed in the other until that one was tried; that the pendency of the suit first brought was no bar to the right of the plaintiff therein to set up the matter of it as a defence to the suit subsequently brought against himself. (Reported in 15 How. Pr. R. 236.)

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

Fuller having a cause of action against Read, sued him; Read, after that, sued Fuller on a demand which fell due after Fuller’s suit was brought, and Fuller, in [698]*698Ms answer set up as a counter-claim, the cause of action on which his suit was brought.

Held, that Fuller, in that stage of the suits, could not he compelled to elect to prosecute his claim in only one of such suits, and to abide by such election. That the court should not obstruct the orderly course of proceeding in either action, until both were at issue on the merits.

If it then appeared that the merits of both could be fully tried, and full relief given in any one suit, the proceedings might properly be stayed in the other until that one was tried; that the pendency of the suit first brought was no bar to the right of the plaintiff therein to set up the matter of it as a defence to the suit subsequently brought against himself. (Reported in 15 How. Pr. R. 236.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Duer 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-read-nysuperctnyc-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack