Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. Hill

157 A.D. 894, 142 N.Y.S. 1124

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

DecidedMay 15, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 A.D. 894 (Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. Hill) 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

Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. Hill, 157 A.D. 894, 142 N.Y.S. 1124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

—Upon the merits, plaintiff is entitled to judgment. There seems to he an irregularity in the practice. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, and that motion was denied. Plaintiff does not appear to have made any cross motion for affirmative relief. The order at Special Term should have been limited to a denial of defendant’s motion. (Ventriniglia v. Eichner, 138 App. Div. 274; Schwartz v. Williams, 153 id. 302.) The order of affirmance in this court should also have been limited to affirming the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It would follow that the final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and also the interlocutory judgment, must be reversed, with costs of this appeal to the appellant, unless the parties shall stipulate to the effect that a motion by plaintiff for judgment on the demurrer was regularly brought on and heard before the entry of the interlocutory judgment herein, and shall make such stipulation a part of the record in this ease. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

—Upon the merits, plaintiff is entitled to judgment. There seems to he an irregularity in the practice. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, and that motion was denied. Plaintiff does not appear to have made any cross motion for affirmative relief. The order at Special Term should have been limited to a denial of defendant’s motion. (Ventriniglia v. Eichner, 138 App. Div. 274; Schwartz v. Williams, 153 id. 302.) The order of affirmance in this court should also have been limited to affirming the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It would follow that the final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and also the interlocutory judgment, must be reversed, with costs of this appeal to the appellant, unless the parties shall stipulate to the effect that a motion by plaintiff for judgment on the demurrer was regularly brought on and heard before the entry of the interlocutory judgment herein, and shall make such stipulation a part of the record in this ease. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D. 894, 142 N.Y.S. 1124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamaica-water-supply-co-v-hill-nyappdiv-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack