Reichmann v. Nelson

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

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 953 (Reichmann v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Moffatt v. . Fulton
30 N.E. 992 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Davis v. Aikin
33 N.Y.S. 103 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.Y.S. 953, 13 Misc. 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichmann-v-nelson-superctny-1895.