Reichmann v. Nelson

Superior Court of New York

Reichmann v. Nelson

34 N.Y.S. 953, 13 Misc. 502

The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo·Decided July 1, 1895·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under the decisions in Moffatt v. Fulton, 132 N. Y. 507, 30 N. E. 992, and Davis v. Aikin, 85 Hun, 554, 33 N. Y. Supp. 103, particularly the former, the action, notwithstanding the omission of the allegation that the moneys were received by the defendant in “a fiduciary capacity,” was in form ex delicto, and the counterclaims arising on contract not connected with the subject of the action were properly disallowed by the referee. The referee, however, properly allowed the defendant credit for matters pleaded by way of counterclaim which pertained to the real estate from which the collections were made, since these were connected with the subject of the action. We find no error in the rulings, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Under the decisions in Moffatt v. Fulton, 132 N. Y. 507, 30 N. E. 992, and Davis v. Aikin, 85 Hun, 554, 33 N. Y. Supp. 103, particularly the former, the action, notwithstanding the omission of the allegation that the moneys were received by the defendant in “a fiduciary capacity,” was in form ex delicto, and the counterclaims arising on contract not connected with the subject of the action were properly disallowed by the referee. The referee, however, properly allowed the defendant credit for matters pleaded by way of counterclaim which pertained to the real estate from which the collections were made, since these were connected with the subject of the action. We find no error in the rulings, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Reichmann v. Nelson, 34 N.Y.S. 953, 13 Misc. 502 (superctny 1895).

Pincite

34 N.Y.S. 953 (Reichmann v. Nelson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related