From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commercial National Bank v. Hand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 1898
27 App. Div. 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

Opinion

March Term, 1898.

Charles De Hart Brower, for the appellant.

John Henry Hull, for the respondent.

Present — VAN BRUNT, P.J., BARRETT, RUMSEY, O'BRIEN and INGRAHAM, JJ.


The question presented in this case was decided by the late General Term of the Supreme Court in the case of New York, Lake Erie W. Ry. Co. v. Carhart (39 Hun, 363). The right of the plaintiff to recover the amount claimed by him was conceded by the defendant. The defendant interposed a counterclaim for which he asked an affirmative judgment. The verdict of the jury awarded him a substantial recovery upon his counterclaim, the amount of which was deducted from the amount conceded to be due to the plaintiff. The only issue involved in the action being the demand of the defendant to recover upon his cause of action against the plaintiff, and he having succeeded in recovering a sum of money upon his counterclaim, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was the successful party. As a matter of fact, upon the only disputed question in the case the defendant succeeded, and, consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to an allowance upon the balance of his conceded claim for which he had judgment.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Commercial National Bank v. Hand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 1898
27 App. Div. 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)
Case details for

Commercial National Bank v. Hand

Case Details

Full title:COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, Respondent, v . ELWOOD S. HAND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1898

Citations

27 App. Div. 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)
50 N.Y.S. 515

Citing Cases

Kremer v. New York Air Terminals, Inc.

Order granting plaintiff an extra allowance of $1,500 modified by reducing it to $12.50, and as so modified…

Huber v. Clark

I am of the opinion that the granting of an extra allowance to the plaintiff was unauthorized. ( New York,…