Gray v. Belding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gray v. Belding

44 N.Y.S. 1118

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

DecidedApril 10, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 44 N.Y.S. 1118 (Gray v. Belding) 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

Gray v. Belding, 44 N.Y.S. 1118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

FOLLETT, J.

The appellant, Edward L. Fuller, and others are joined as defendants in this action, and the complaint demurred to by the appellant herein is the one which was demurred to by Edward L. Fuller; and, for a statement of the cause of action set forth in the complaint, reference is made to the opinion delivered on Fuller’s appeal. It is alleged that Milo M. Belding combined with his co-defendants to defraud the corporation of its property, and that he actually secured some part of it for his own benefit; and within the rule declared in Gray v. Fuller, 44 N. Y. Supp. 883, a cause of action is stated against him. The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with leave to the demurrant to withdraw his demurrer and answer on the payment of the costs of the court below and of this appeal.

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

FOLLETT, J.

The appellant, Edward L. Fuller, and others are joined as defendants in this action, and the complaint demurred to by the appellant herein is the one which was demurred to by Edward L. Fuller; and, for a statement of the cause of action set forth in the complaint, reference is made to the opinion delivered on Fuller’s appeal. It is alleged that Milo M. Belding combined with his co-defendants to defraud the corporation of its property, and that he actually secured some part of it for his own benefit; and within the rule declared in Gray v. Fuller, 44 N. Y. Supp. 883, a cause of action is stated against him. The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with leave to the demurrant to withdraw his demurrer and answer on the payment of the costs of the court below and of this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.Y.S. 1118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-belding-nyappdiv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack