Terraqua Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

273 A.D. 254, 76 N.Y.S.2d 610
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 1948·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Successive actions for declaratory judgment should not be permitted in order to give a litigant an opportunity to raise some additional point which he failed to present in a former action: In any event, on the merits, the decision of the court below as to the second and third causes of action was [257]*257correct. If, and we do not so decide, the plaintiff has á" valid claim with respect to the item for temporary repairs, the cost of refrigerator- and gas stove and the adjustment of interest referred to in the complaint, he should be relegated to an action at law, in the proper forum. (Newburger v. Lubell, 257 N. Y. 383; James v. Alderton Dock Yards, 256 N. Y. 298, 304-306.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Terraqua Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 273 A.D. 254, 76 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

273 A.D. 254 (Terraqua Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Denario
267 B.R. 496 (N.D. New York, 2001)
Giberson v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Waterloo
329 N.W.2d 9 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1983)
Pearson v. First National Bank of Martinsville
408 N.E.2d 166 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1980)
Hadjis v. Anderson
271 A.2d 350 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1970)