Photos v. Coufos

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Photos v. Coufos

153 N.Y.S. 217

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 13, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 153 N.Y.S. 217 (Photos v. Coufos) 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

Photos v. Coufos, 153 N.Y.S. 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

In this action to foreclose a chattel mortgage a writ of seizure was granted by the court.

The defendants, other than the mortgagor, served an answer countérclaiming for the sum of $389.25 alleged to have been obtained from them through duress by the marshal; said defendants, it is claimed, [218]*218being compelled to pay that sum of money to prevent the marshal from carrying their property away from their place of business.

When the cause was reached for trial, the plaintiff’s attorney moved to discontinue. Upon the objection of the answering defendants, the trial justice marked the action discontinued without prejudice to a new action upon plaintiff’s discontinuance, and then proceeded with an inquest on defendant’s counterclaim, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for $418.66. A motion to vacate this judgment was denied. The learned trial justice erred in proceeding to take proof on the counterclaim after the discontinuance. The discontinuance terminated the right of the defendant to litigate the counterclaim in the action (A. M. Engel & Co. v. Davis, 81 Misc. Rep. 202, 142 N. Y. Supp. 469), and the fact that no objection was made by the plaintiff’s attorney to the procedure does not warrant defendants’ recovery.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment on counterclaim vacated. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

In this action to foreclose a chattel mortgage a writ of seizure was granted by the court.

The defendants, other than the mortgagor, served an answer countérclaiming for the sum of $389.25 alleged to have been obtained from them through duress by the marshal; said defendants, it is claimed, [218]*218being compelled to pay that sum of money to prevent the marshal from carrying their property away from their place of business.

When the cause was reached for trial, the plaintiff’s attorney moved to discontinue. Upon the objection of the answering defendants, the trial justice marked the action discontinued without prejudice to a new action upon plaintiff’s discontinuance, and then proceeded with an inquest on defendant’s counterclaim, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for $418.66. A motion to vacate this judgment was denied. The learned trial justice erred in proceeding to take proof on the counterclaim after the discontinuance. The discontinuance terminated the right of the defendant to litigate the counterclaim in the action (A. M. Engel & Co. v. Davis, 81 Misc. Rep. 202, 142 N. Y. Supp. 469), and the fact that no objection was made by the plaintiff’s attorney to the procedure does not warrant defendants’ recovery.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment on counterclaim vacated. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.Y.S. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/photos-v-coufos-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack