From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Southworth v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 22, 1874
58 N.Y. 659 (N.Y. 1874)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Southworth v. Bennett (58 N.Y. 659) and Stokes v. Behrenes (23 Misc. Rep. 442), called to our attention by the appellant, it is held that the time when a party should be put to his election as to which of two inconsistent causes of action or defenses he will rely upon, is in the discretion of the court.

Summary of this case from Sherman v. McCarthy
See 1 Summary

Opinion

Submitted June 12, 1874

Decided September 22, 1874

M. Goodrich for the appellant.

E.H. Benn for the respondent.

JOHNSON, J., reads for affirmance of order of General Term and for dismissal of appeal from judgment.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Summaries of

Southworth v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 22, 1874
58 N.Y. 659 (N.Y. 1874)

In Southworth v. Bennett (58 N.Y. 659) and Stokes v. Behrenes (23 Misc. Rep. 442), called to our attention by the appellant, it is held that the time when a party should be put to his election as to which of two inconsistent causes of action or defenses he will rely upon, is in the discretion of the court.

Summary of this case from Sherman v. McCarthy
Case details for

Southworth v. Bennett

Case Details

Full title:JOHN SOUTHWORTH, Appellant, v . GEORGE K. BENNETT, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 22, 1874

Citations

58 N.Y. 659 (N.Y. 1874)

Citing Cases

Tuthill v. Skidmore

But when, as in the case at bar, the inconsistency plainly appears on the face of the complaint, the…

Sherman v. McCarthy

The rule stated in the decisions quoted has not been limited to the motions enumerated in said Supreme Court…

4 Citing Cases