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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 3, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1079 (Sherwin v. Monetta Holding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1079, 11 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwin-v-monetta-holding-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack