Quinn v. O'Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinn v. O'Reilly

163 A.D. 921, 148 N.Y.S. 1139

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

DecidedMay 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D. 921 (Quinn v. O'Reilly) 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

Quinn v. O'Reilly, 163 A.D. 921, 148 N.Y.S. 1139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court of Kings county reve’-sed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and order directed for judgment allowing plaintiffs’ demurrer to defense and counterclaim pleaded in defendant’s amended answer, with costs, with leave to defendant to amend the amended answer within twenty days on payment of costs. The defendant’s defense is obviously insufficient in law upon its face. Defendant’s counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It states, if anything, a cause of [922]*922action in tort which does not arise out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of plaintiff’s claim, and which is not connected with the subject-matter of the action. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Order of the County Court of Kings county reve’-sed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and order directed for judgment allowing plaintiffs’ demurrer to defense and counterclaim pleaded in defendant’s amended answer, with costs, with leave to defendant to amend the amended answer within twenty days on payment of costs. The defendant’s defense is obviously insufficient in law upon its face. Defendant’s counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It states, if anything, a cause of [922]*922action in tort which does not arise out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of plaintiff’s claim, and which is not connected with the subject-matter of the action. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D. 921, 148 N.Y.S. 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-oreilly-nyappdiv-1914.