Saratoga Auto Top & Body Co. v. Whitney

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Saratoga Auto Top & Body Co. v. Whitney

114 N.Y.S. 925

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 114 N.Y.S. 925 (Saratoga Auto Top & Body Co. v. Whitney) 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

Saratoga Auto Top & Body Co. v. Whitney, 114 N.Y.S. 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The judgment appealed from must be reversed, because it was entered without evidence of any character being offered, although the complaint stated a cause of action. When the case was called for trial, the defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss on the ground that there was another action pending in the Supreme Court involving the same issues. The counsel for the plaintiff declared that the action in the Supreme Court did not involve the same issues, and objected ’to the granting of the motion to dismiss without an inspection of the pleadings in the Supreme Court action. Notwithstanding this [926]*926entirely proper objection, the court peremptorily awarded judgment dismissing the complaint, with $27.41 costs' to the defendant. The mere recitation of these facts shows that the judgment must be reversed, and makes further comment unnecessary.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The judgment appealed from must be reversed, because it was entered without evidence of any character being offered, although the complaint stated a cause of action. When the case was called for trial, the defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss on the ground that there was another action pending in the Supreme Court involving the same issues. The counsel for the plaintiff declared that the action in the Supreme Court did not involve the same issues, and objected ’to the granting of the motion to dismiss without an inspection of the pleadings in the Supreme Court action. Notwithstanding this [926]*926entirely proper objection, the court peremptorily awarded judgment dismissing the complaint, with $27.41 costs' to the defendant. The mere recitation of these facts shows that the judgment must be reversed, and makes further comment unnecessary.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.Y.S. 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saratoga-auto-top-body-co-v-whitney-nyappterm-1909.