Home/Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York/Stutson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Stutson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

170 Misc. 419, 10 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1633
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 1939
StatusPublished

This text of 170 Misc. 419 (Stutson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.) 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
Stutson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 170 Misc. 419, 10 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The finding of the Virginia court that Louis H. Stutson was a fraudulent assignee may be availed of as a defense by the defendant. A recovery against the principal in an action to which the surety is not a party is not conclusive upon the surety where the covenant is one of general indemnity merely against claims or suits. It was error, therefore, to strike out the first and second defenses. (Adams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 239 App. Div. 525; affd., 264 N. Y. 550; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 9th Avenue-31st St. Corp., 274 id. 388.)

Order modified by reinstating the first and second defenses, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

All concur. Present — Hammer, Shientag and Noonan, JJ.

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

Related

Adams v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
191 N.E. 559 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
Adams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
239 A.D. 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 Misc. 419, 10 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stutson-v-new-amsterdam-casualty-co-nyappterm-1939.