Rathborne v. Hatch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rathborne v. Hatch

68 A.D. 633, 73 N.Y.S. 859

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D. 633 (Rathborne v. Hatch) 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

Rathborne v. Hatch, 68 A.D. 633, 73 N.Y.S. 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The question of the sufficiency of the complaint was not raised at Special Term, and was not, therefore, passed upon. We have, however, examined the complaint and think it states a good cause of action. It is not contended by the appellant that t-he decision of the Special Term holding.the counterclaim to be bad is erroneous, and it, therefore, follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Present—Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

The question of the sufficiency of the complaint was not raised at Special Term, and was not, therefore, passed upon. We have, however, examined the complaint and think it states a good cause of action. It is not contended by the appellant that t-he decision of the Special Term holding.the counterclaim to be bad is erroneous, and it, therefore, follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Present—Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D. 633, 73 N.Y.S. 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rathborne-v-hatch-nyappdiv-1902.