Horton v. Horton

New York Supreme Court

Horton v. Horton

31 N.Y.S. 588, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 213, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 142

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 N.Y.S. 588 (Horton v. Horton) 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

Horton v. Horton, 31 N.Y.S. 588, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 213, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered at the special term dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. We have little doubt that the decision of the trial court was right, on the facts proved, and that it was justified in finding that the plaintiff" did execute the release despite her final statement to the contrary. But the plaintiff objected to the proof of the release, on the ground1 that no such defense was pleaded, and excepted to the ruling of the court admitting it in evidence. This objection was well founded.. A release of a cause of action is an affirmative defense, and must be pleaded. McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297; Kirchner v. Sewing Mach. Co., 135 N. Y. 182, 31 N. E. 1104. The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

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

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered at the special term dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. We have little doubt that the decision of the trial court was right, on the facts proved, and that it was justified in finding that the plaintiff" did execute the release despite her final statement to the contrary. But the plaintiff objected to the proof of the release, on the ground1 that no such defense was pleaded, and excepted to the ruling of the court admitting it in evidence. This objection was well founded.. A release of a cause of action is an affirmative defense, and must be pleaded. McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297; Kirchner v. Sewing Mach. Co., 135 N. Y. 182, 31 N. E. 1104. The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.Y.S. 588, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 213, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-horton-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack