Sherwin v. Monetta Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherwin v. Monetta Holding Co.

256 A.D. 1079, 11 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6207

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 1939·Published

Opinion

Action in equity to compel defendants to account for an alleged breach of trust in relation to an interest in a certain mortgage owned by the plaintiff. Defendants moved at the trial for judgment on the pleadings and bills of particulars. They also made a motion on the pleadings and bills of particulars and upon a judgment roll in another action between the same parties, which was decided in favor of the defendants, and on which defendants invoked the doctrine of res judicata. Defendants’ motions were granted and judgment entered dismissing the complaint, on the ground that it was barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prae. Act, § 48), and also on the ground that the issues tendered were res judicata. Judgment for defendants unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N. Y. 259; Drydock Knitting Mills, Inc., v. Queens Machine Corp., 254 App. Div. 568.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Action in equity to compel defendants to account for an alleged breach of trust in relation to an interest in a certain mortgage owned by the plaintiff. Defendants moved at the trial for judgment on the pleadings and bills of particulars. They also made a motion on the pleadings and bills of particulars and upon a judgment roll in another action between the same parties, which was decided in favor of the defendants, and on which defendants invoked the doctrine of res judicata. Defendants’ motions were granted and judgment entered dismissing the complaint, on the ground that it was barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prae. Act, § 48), and also on the ground that the issues tendered were res judicata. Judgment for defendants unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N. Y. 259; Drydock Knitting Mills, Inc., v. Queens Machine Corp., 254 App. Div. 568.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Sherwin v. Monetta Holding Co., 256 A.D. 1079, 11 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

256 A.D. 1079 (Sherwin v. Monetta Holding Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related