McCool v. Merrill-Ruckgaber Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McCool v. Merrill-Ruckgaber Co.

129 N.Y.S. 377

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 N.Y.S. 377 (McCool v. Merrill-Ruckgaber Co.) 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

McCool v. Merrill-Ruckgaber Co., 129 N.Y.S. 377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

The action was brought to recover for work, labor, and services in the manufacture of certain steel column bases for a building in course of construction by defendant.

[ 1 ] The answer, after certain admissions and denials and a separate defense, sets out five counterclaims, on none of which, however, any affirmative relief is demanded. They are, therefore, to be treated as separate defenses.

The motion for a bill of particulars was directed to four items, and was granted as to the first, but denied as to the other three. In short, the facts involved in the three items covered by the refusal referred to details of the amount of freight paid by the defendant,, for which it claims plaintiff was liable, and details of the expense which defendant claims to have been put to by reason of plaintiff’s delay in shipping the bases. The learned court below denied the request for particulars in respect of these items ón the authority of O’Rourke v. U. S. Mortgage & Trust Co., 95 App. Div. 518, 88 N. Y. Supp. 926, Smith v. [378]*378Anderson, 126 App. Div. 26, 110 N. Y. Supp. 191, and Radcliffe v. N. Y. Cab Co., 134 App. Div. 450, 119 N. Y. Supp. 251.

[2] Although it is true that the answer prays for no affirmative relief, nevertheless there are items which defendant must prove affirmatively, not by way of denial of the facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action, but in reduction of the amount of plaintiff’s recovery. They constitute a “claim,” in the language of section 531 of the Code, as interpreted in Dwight v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 84 N. Y. 493, Reader v. Haggin, 123 App. Div. 489, 107 N. Y. Supp. 963, and Spitz v. Heinze, 77 App. Div. 317, 79 N. Y. Supp. 187.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

The action was brought to recover for work, labor, and services in the manufacture of certain steel column bases for a building in course of construction by defendant.

[ 1 ] The answer, after certain admissions and denials and a separate defense, sets out five counterclaims, on none of which, however, any affirmative relief is demanded. They are, therefore, to be treated as separate defenses.

The motion for a bill of particulars was directed to four items, and was granted as to the first, but denied as to the other three. In short, the facts involved in the three items covered by the refusal referred to details of the amount of freight paid by the defendant,, for which it claims plaintiff was liable, and details of the expense which defendant claims to have been put to by reason of plaintiff’s delay in shipping the bases. The learned court below denied the request for particulars in respect of these items ón the authority of O’Rourke v. U. S. Mortgage & Trust Co., 95 App. Div. 518, 88 N. Y. Supp. 926, Smith v. [378]*378Anderson, 126 App. Div. 26, 110 N. Y. Supp. 191, and Radcliffe v. N. Y. Cab Co., 134 App. Div. 450, 119 N. Y. Supp. 251.

[2] Although it is true that the answer prays for no affirmative relief, nevertheless there are items which defendant must prove affirmatively, not by way of denial of the facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action, but in reduction of the amount of plaintiff’s recovery. They constitute a “claim,” in the language of section 531 of the Code, as interpreted in Dwight v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 84 N. Y. 493, Reader v. Haggin, 123 App. Div. 489, 107 N. Y. Supp. 963, and Spitz v. Heinze, 77 App. Div. 317, 79 N. Y. Supp. 187.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.Y.S. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccool-v-merrill-ruckgaber-co-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack