Herkimer County Bank v. Furman

New York Supreme Court

Herkimer County Bank v. Furman

17 Barb. 116, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 192

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 3, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 17 Barb. 116 (Herkimer County Bank v. Furman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herkimer County Bank v. Furman, 17 Barb. 116, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 192 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Gridley, J.

This cause comes before us on an appeal by the defendant from the decision of a single judge. If it had appeared in the complaint that the dissolution of the Astoro[119]*119gan Company took place under the act of 1852, that fact would have been fatal to the action, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered this term in the case of Walker v. Crain,

(a) to which we refer for the grounds of the judgment. But there is nothing to indicate that the proceeding was under the act of 1852 to be found in the complaint, except what is purely conjectural, and we cannot assume .it. If the proceeding was in reality under that act, that fact may be set up in the answer, and will form a defense to the action. On this complaint, however, we cannot say that it does’not contain facts enough to constitute a cause of action, and therefore affirm the decision of the court below. We perceive that a judgment was ordered in the suit, and whether the defendant had leave to answer given him on payment of costs, the papers do not show. But we think the defendant ought to have such right if he should apply, and show that the dissolution was in fact under the act of 1852.

[Onondaga General Term, October 3, 1853.

Gridley, W. F. Allen, Hubbard and Pratt, Justices.]

We therefore affirm the judgment, with a stay for 20 days, to enable the defendant to apply to the court for such an order.

See next case.

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

By the Court, Gridley, J.

This cause comes before us on an appeal by the defendant from the decision of a single judge. If it had appeared in the complaint that the dissolution of the Astoro[119]*119gan Company took place under the act of 1852, that fact would have been fatal to the action, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered this term in the case of Walker v. Crain,

(a) to which we refer for the grounds of the judgment. But there is nothing to indicate that the proceeding was under the act of 1852 to be found in the complaint, except what is purely conjectural, and we cannot assume .it. If the proceeding was in reality under that act, that fact may be set up in the answer, and will form a defense to the action. On this complaint, however, we cannot say that it does’not contain facts enough to constitute a cause of action, and therefore affirm the decision of the court below. We perceive that a judgment was ordered in the suit, and whether the defendant had leave to answer given him on payment of costs, the papers do not show. But we think the defendant ought to have such right if he should apply, and show that the dissolution was in fact under the act of 1852.

[Onondaga General Term, October 3, 1853.

Gridley, W. F. Allen, Hubbard and Pratt, Justices.]

We therefore affirm the judgment, with a stay for 20 days, to enable the defendant to apply to the court for such an order.

See next case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Barb. 116, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herkimer-county-bank-v-furman-nysupct-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack