Hess v. Stowell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hess v. Stowell

262 A.D. 800, 28 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900

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

DecidedMay 7, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 800 (Hess v. Stowell) 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

Hess v. Stowell, 262 A.D. 800, 28 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and two orders affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the action was not commenced within the time limited by statute of the State of Connecticut. All concur, except Dowling and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and reinstatement of the verdict on the ground that the defendant is estopped from pleading the Connecticut statute as a defense and on the ground that she had one year from her appointment as executrix in which to bring the action. (See Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U. S. 54, and cases cited; Leahy v. Cheney, 90 Conn. 611; 98 A. 132.) (The judgment dismisses plaintiff’s complaint on a reserved decision of defendant’s motion after the court set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff in an action for damages arising out of the negligent operation of an automobile. One order dismisses the complaint. The second order sets aside the jury’s verdict and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss.) Present — 'Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Judgment and two orders affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the action was not commenced within the time limited by statute of the State of Connecticut. All concur, except Dowling and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and reinstatement of the verdict on the ground that the defendant is estopped from pleading the Connecticut statute as a defense and on the ground that she had one year from her appointment as executrix in which to bring the action. (See Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U. S. 54, and cases cited; Leahy v. Cheney, 90 Conn. 611; 98 A. 132.) (The judgment dismisses plaintiff’s complaint on a reserved decision of defendant’s motion after the court set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff in an action for damages arising out of the negligent operation of an automobile. One order dismisses the complaint. The second order sets aside the jury’s verdict and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss.) Present — 'Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 800, 28 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hess-v-stowell-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack