Glover v. Egner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glover v. Egner

256 A.D. 981

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1939

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 981 (Glover v. Egner) 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

Glover v. Egner, 256 A.D. 981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

—■ Action in ejectment. Appeal by defendant Murray from an order of the Special Term, Suffolk county, denying his motion to dismiss the second cause of action on the ground that this action is barred by the judgment entered in a prior action. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. After the close of plaintiffs’ evidence in the former action defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on the ground of failure of proof. The dismissal bars a new action. (Hollenbeck v. /Etna Casualty & Surety Co., 215 App. Div. 609; affd., 243 N. Y. 540; Ziegler v. International Railway Co., 232 App. Div. 43; Cabang v. United States Shipping Bd. Merchant Fleet Corp., 227 id. 751. See, also, Kagan v. Avallone, 243 id. 437, at pp. 441, 442; Civ. Prac. Act, § 482.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

—■ Action in ejectment. Appeal by defendant Murray from an order of the Special Term, Suffolk county, denying his motion to dismiss the second cause of action on the ground that this action is barred by the judgment entered in a prior action. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. After the close of plaintiffs’ evidence in the former action defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on the ground of failure of proof. The dismissal bars a new action. (Hollenbeck v. /Etna Casualty & Surety Co., 215 App. Div. 609; affd., 243 N. Y. 540; Ziegler v. International Railway Co., 232 App. Div. 43; Cabang v. United States Shipping Bd. Merchant Fleet Corp., 227 id. 751. See, also, Kagan v. Avallone, 243 id. 437, at pp. 441, 442; Civ. Prac. Act, § 482.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-egner-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack