Utica Gas & Electric Co. v. Kingston
This text of 176 A.D. 948 (Utica Gas & Electric Co. v. Kingston) 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.
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with costs. Held, that under the issue tendered by the defense alleged in the answer and evidence given in support thereof, a question of fact was presented for a jury, both upon the claim of rent and taxes sought to be recovered. 3. Also, that plaintiff was not justified in paying the taxes to the city of Little Falls with intent to collect the same from the defendant, without his request or authority or refusal upon the part of the defendant to pay the same to the city. 3. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the taxes here involved many event, except pursuant to. an allegation, and proof made in support thereof, that the plaintiff had, before the commencement of the action, paid the same. There being no allegation thereof, the court erred in receiving evidence that the taxes were paid by the plaintiff. All concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
176 A.D. 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utica-gas-electric-co-v-kingston-nyappdiv-1917.