Huisenga v. Dairymen's League Co-operative Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huisenga v. Dairymen's League Co-operative Ass'n

258 A.D. 890, 16 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7461

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 890 (Huisenga v. Dairymen's League Co-operative Ass'n) 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

Huisenga v. Dairymen's League Co-operative Ass'n, 258 A.D. 890, 16 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action arising out of a contract between the parties, the complaint sets forth two causes of action.. The answer, besides, various denials and defenses, contains counterclaims to both causes of action. The plaintiff replied to the counterclaims and the defendant moved to strike out the reply on various grounds. The motion was denied, and the defendant appeals. Order denying defendant’s motion, in so far as appealed from, modified by striking out paragraphs “ Second,” “ Third,” “ Sixth,” “ Eighth,” “ Ninth ” and “ Twelfth ” of the reply, and, as thus modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Plaintiff having accepted the benefits of the contract, when suing thereon is estopped from questioning its validity. The sufficiency of the other defenses raised should be determined by the trial court upon the proof, Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action arising out of a contract between the parties, the complaint sets forth two causes of action.. The answer, besides, various denials and defenses, contains counterclaims to both causes of action. The plaintiff replied to the counterclaims and the defendant moved to strike out the reply on various grounds. The motion was denied, and the defendant appeals. Order denying defendant’s motion, in so far as appealed from, modified by striking out paragraphs “ Second,” “ Third,” “ Sixth,” “ Eighth,” “ Ninth ” and “ Twelfth ” of the reply, and, as thus modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Plaintiff having accepted the benefits of the contract, when suing thereon is estopped from questioning its validity. The sufficiency of the other defenses raised should be determined by the trial court upon the proof, Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 890, 16 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huisenga-v-dairymens-league-co-operative-assn-nyappdiv-1939.