From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company v. Hatch

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 19, 1937
6 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1937)

Summary

In Rochester Trust Safe Deposit Co. v. Hatch (supra) it was expressly held that in such a case the defense or offset of the market value, under section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act, may be interposed only as against the cause of action for the principal.

Summary of this case from White v. Wielandt

Opinion

Argued January 5, 1937

Decided January 19, 1937

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

C. Vincent Wiser and John G. Shaw for appellant.

James M. O'Reilly and Raymond Bentley for respondents.


Orders reversed, with costs in all courts, and motion granted to the extent of striking out the defenses pleaded to the separate causes of action for interest and taxes only on the authority of Johnson v. Meyer ( 242 App. Div. 798; affd., 268 N.Y. 701). Question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion. (See 273 N.Y. 581.)

Concur: CRANE, Ch. J., O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN and RIPPEY, JJ. Taking no part: LEHMAN and FINCH, JJ.


Summaries of

Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company v. Hatch

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 19, 1937
6 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1937)

In Rochester Trust Safe Deposit Co. v. Hatch (supra) it was expressly held that in such a case the defense or offset of the market value, under section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act, may be interposed only as against the cause of action for the principal.

Summary of this case from White v. Wielandt
Case details for

Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company v. Hatch

Case Details

Full title:ROCHESTER TRUST AND SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. RODNEY S. HATCH et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 19, 1937

Citations

6 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1937)
6 N.E.2d 426

Citing Cases

Central Hanover Bank T. Co. v. Roslyn Estates

Respondent contends that under the moratory statutes a mortgagee may sue in one action — pleading separate…

White v. Wielandt

It has been held that, despite the moratorium statutes (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 1077-b, 1083-b), the mortgagee may…