Jackson v. Brown

New York Supreme Court

Jackson v. Brown

26 N.Y.S. 156, 74 Hun 25, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 25, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 272

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 N.Y.S. 156 (Jackson v. Brown) 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

Jackson v. Brown, 26 N.Y.S. 156, 74 Hun 25, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 25, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 272 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. Nominally, the first cause of action is for loss of services of a servant by reason of seduction by the defendant, and the second cause alleged is to set aside a release of the first cause of action, obtained by fraud. Although alleged as two causes of action, there is really but one,— the action for loss of services. The allegations relative to the release were merely incidental to the cause of action. It is true the plaintiff has pleaded the loss of services, and left it for the defendant to set up the release as a defense, and then avoided it on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, but the defendant is not prejudiced by the fact that it is a part of the complaint. We also think this method of pleading is authorized by the Code, but it may not be greatly commended. The case resembles the familiar method often employed when it is sought to reform a policy of insurance, and then recover upon it as reformed. Judgment reversed, and new trial awarded, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event.

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

PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. Nominally, the first cause of action is for loss of services of a servant by reason of seduction by the defendant, and the second cause alleged is to set aside a release of the first cause of action, obtained by fraud. Although alleged as two causes of action, there is really but one,— the action for loss of services. The allegations relative to the release were merely incidental to the cause of action. It is true the plaintiff has pleaded the loss of services, and left it for the defendant to set up the release as a defense, and then avoided it on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, but the defendant is not prejudiced by the fact that it is a part of the complaint. We also think this method of pleading is authorized by the Code, but it may not be greatly commended. The case resembles the familiar method often employed when it is sought to reform a policy of insurance, and then recover upon it as reformed. Judgment reversed, and new trial awarded, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.Y.S. 156, 74 Hun 25, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 25, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-brown-nysupct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack