Schlaefer v. Heiberger

New York Supreme Court

Schlaefer v. Heiberger

4 N.Y.S. 74, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 843, 51 Hun 644, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 194

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 N.Y.S. 74 (Schlaefer v. Heiberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schlaefer v. Heiberger, 4 N.Y.S. 74, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 843, 51 Hun 644, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 194 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

The defendant in this action had a bill against the father of the plaintiff, and he caused it to be presented to the plaintiff’s wife, and she paid it voluntarily. This action was then commenced in a court of a justice of the peace for the recovery of the money. The defendant had judgment in the first court, which was affirmed on appeal to the county court, and now the plaintiff has brought the case here on appeal. The payment was not induced by false representations, and there was no mistake or misconception of fact, and the payment resulted in the discharge of a just debt, and we find no reason for interference with the judgment. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykman, J.

The defendant in this action had a bill against the father of the plaintiff, and he caused it to be presented to the plaintiff’s wife, and she paid it voluntarily. This action was then commenced in a court of a justice of the peace for the recovery of the money. The defendant had judgment in the first court, which was affirmed on appeal to the county court, and now the plaintiff has brought the case here on appeal. The payment was not induced by false representations, and there was no mistake or misconception of fact, and the payment resulted in the discharge of a just debt, and we find no reason for interference with the judgment. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.Y.S. 74, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 843, 51 Hun 644, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlaefer-v-heiberger-nysupct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack