Hamilton v. Royal Indemnity Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamilton v. Royal Indemnity Co.

124 Misc. 744, 209 N.Y.S. 670, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1239, 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10781

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 124 Misc. 744 (Hamilton v. Royal Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Royal Indemnity Co., 124 Misc. 744, 209 N.Y.S. 670, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1239, 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The defendant herein cannot avail itself of the unsatisfied judgment in favor of its principal against the plaintiff’s assignor. If this judgment had been assigned to the defendant, a different question would have arisen. The mere fact that it was recovered prior to the entry of the judgment assigned to plaintiff and is unsatisfied is not sufficient to entitle the defendant to plead it as a set-off.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $123.97, with interest and costs of the action.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

The defendant herein cannot avail itself of the unsatisfied judgment in favor of its principal against the plaintiff’s assignor. If this judgment had been assigned to the defendant, a different question would have arisen. The mere fact that it was recovered prior to the entry of the judgment assigned to plaintiff and is unsatisfied is not sufficient to entitle the defendant to plead it as a set-off.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $123.97, with interest and costs of the action.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Misc. 744, 209 N.Y.S. 670, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1239, 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-royal-indemnity-co-nyappterm-1925.