Verplanck v. Kendall
This text of 13 Jones & S. 525 (Verplanck v. Kendall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This action, as [526]*526-pleaded, is for the recovery of damages for fraud and .deceit. Tort being the - whole groundwork of the .action, it is settled that the defendant has a constitutional right of trial by jury, of which neither the court ■nor any statute can deprive him, and that it is no ■answer to his claim of. such a trial to say that the plaintiff may fall back upon an implied promise (Townsend v. Hendricks, 40 How. Pr. 143, reversing S. C., 32 N. Y. Super. Ct. [2 Sweeny] 503).
The same right exists in an action to recover unliquidated damages for the breach of a contract (Ross v. Combes, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. [5 J. & S.] 289).
The character of the action is determined by the .complaint, and it is only when the complaint sets forth ■an action on contract which is shown to involve the .examination of a long account, that the defendant cannot defeat a reference by a tender of an issue of fraud -in the transaction, and claiming damages by way of recoupment or counter-claim (Welsh v. Darragh, 52 N. Y. 590; Patterson v. Stettauer, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. [7 J. & S.] 413).
The order should be reversed, with costs.
Curtis, Ch. J., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
13 Jones & S. 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verplanck-v-kendall-nysuperctnyc-1879.