Mendoza v. Steimer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendoza v. Steimer

95 N.Y.S. 603

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 603 (Mendoza v. Steimer) 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

Mendoza v. Steimer, 95 N.Y.S. 603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s chief grievance appears to be that he was not permitted to show that the money bet belonged to one DeLacy, and not to plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. No such plea is contained in the answer, and the evidence was not competent under a general denial. Smith v. Hall, 67 N. Y. 50; Spooner v. D„ L. & W. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 22, 21 N. E. 696. In other respects the case is not to be distinguished from Mendoza v. Rose, 44 Misc. Rep. 241, 88 N. Y. Supp. 938.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s chief grievance appears to be that he was not permitted to show that the money bet belonged to one DeLacy, and not to plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. No such plea is contained in the answer, and the evidence was not competent under a general denial. Smith v. Hall, 67 N. Y. 50; Spooner v. D„ L. & W. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 22, 21 N. E. 696. In other respects the case is not to be distinguished from Mendoza v. Rose, 44 Misc. Rep. 241, 88 N. Y. Supp. 938.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.Y.S. 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-steimer-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack