Kennah v. Hurley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kennah v. Hurley

258 A.D. 771, 14 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6817

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 771 (Kennah v. Hurley) 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

Kennah v. Hurley, 258 A.D. 771, 14 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting a summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The action was brought to recover the amount of a check. The answer raised the issue that defendant, the drawer of the cheek, had been discharged in bankruptcy from his debts, including that for which this action is brought. It appears that this plaintiff was not listed as a creditor, and that the debt was not discharged. Orders and judgment affirmed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent, on the ground that the papers upon which the motion was granted did not meet the requirement of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and on the further ground that upon all the papers in the case there was a triable issue of fact.

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

Appeal from an order granting a summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The action was brought to recover the amount of a check. The answer raised the issue that defendant, the drawer of the cheek, had been discharged in bankruptcy from his debts, including that for which this action is brought. It appears that this plaintiff was not listed as a creditor, and that the debt was not discharged. Orders and judgment affirmed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent, on the ground that the papers upon which the motion was granted did not meet the requirement of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and on the further ground that upon all the papers in the case there was a triable issue of fact.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 771, 14 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennah-v-hurley-nyappdiv-1939.