Heywood Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ralph

31 N.Y.S. 263, 82 Hun 418, 89 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 418, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 580
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 4, 1894·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

HERRICK, J.

The judgment in this case should be affirmed. The defendant did not keep his tender good, by paying the amount thereof into court at the commencement of this action, and alleging that fact in the answer. It was not paid into court until the day of trial, —too late to stop the costs of the action, and too late to stop the running of interest, the purposes for which it is required the tender should be made, and kept good by a deposit in court. Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317; Halpin v. Insurance Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Heywood Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ralph, 31 N.Y.S. 263, 82 Hun 418, 89 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 418, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 580 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

31 N.Y.S. 263 (Heywood Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ralph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Peterson
7 Mills Surr. 519 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1910)