Mahar v. Harrington Park Villa Sites

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahar v. Harrington Park Villa Sites

123 N.Y.S. 927

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 927 (Mahar v. Harrington Park Villa Sites) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahar v. Harrington Park Villa Sites, 123 N.Y.S. 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Upon the return, the plaintiff pleaded orally: “Money,. ’ had and received, affecting the title of Harrington Park.” The defendant immediately filed a written demurrer. The demurrer was sustained, and the court directed that the plaintiff “file a bill of particulars setting forth his cause of action.” It does not appear from the record that any bill was filed, nor that the cause of action was ever adequately stated.

At the opening of the trial the defendant moved to dismiss, which motion was denied. Under the circumstances, defendant having made-[928]*928due and timely objection in every possible way to plaintiff’s insufficient pleading, the refusal to dismiss was error. See Samuelson v. Mayer (decided in June, 1910, Appellate Division, First Department), 123 N. Y. Supp. 418.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to .abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Upon the return, the plaintiff pleaded orally: “Money,. ’ had and received, affecting the title of Harrington Park.” The defendant immediately filed a written demurrer. The demurrer was sustained, and the court directed that the plaintiff “file a bill of particulars setting forth his cause of action.” It does not appear from the record that any bill was filed, nor that the cause of action was ever adequately stated.

At the opening of the trial the defendant moved to dismiss, which motion was denied. Under the circumstances, defendant having made-[928]*928due and timely objection in every possible way to plaintiff’s insufficient pleading, the refusal to dismiss was error. See Samuelson v. Mayer (decided in June, 1910, Appellate Division, First Department), 123 N. Y. Supp. 418.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to .abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahar-v-harrington-park-villa-sites-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack