From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edison Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Kalbfleisch Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1907
117 App. Div. 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)

Opinion

March 8, 1907.

James W. Prendergast [ James C. Bergen with him on the brief], for the appellant.

L.B. Grant, for the respondent.


Stripping this complaint of its verbiage and making it lean, we find a cause of action for damages for breach of the contract, and another for damages for fraud in inducing the plaintiff to make it. They are not "consistent with each other", and therefore cannot be united in the same complaint under subdivision 9 of section 484 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that is the only authority for uniting a cause of action on contract with one in tort. To assert one is to negative the other, and the plaintiff has to elect which he will sue on. He cannot sue on both.

The judgment should be reversed.

HIRSCHBERG, P.J., WOODWARD, RICH and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

Interlocutory judgment overruling demurrer to complaint reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to plead over on payment.


Summaries of

Edison Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Kalbfleisch Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1907
117 App. Div. 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)
Case details for

Edison Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Kalbfleisch Co.

Case Details

Full title:EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY OF BROOKLYN, Respondent, v . FRANKLIN…

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1907

Citations

117 App. Div. 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)
102 N.Y.S. 1039

Citing Cases

Taft v. Bronson

( Bowen v. Mandeville, 95 N.Y. 237; New York Land Improvement Co. v. Chapman, 118 id. 288, 296; Crossman v.…

Sommer v. Ehrgott

JENKS, P.J.: The appellant's contention that there is a misjoinder of a cause for breach of contract and a…