Greenhill v. Delano
Opinion of the Court
The complaint in this action is based upon the same state of facts as those alleged in action No. 1, in which an appeal was argued before us simultaneously with this appeal.
The first defense is a repetition of the defense the demurrer to which we held was properly overruled in the court at Special Term in action No. 1.
It is, therefore, only necessary to consider the demurrer to the second separate and independent defense, which in effect
The defense also contains an allegation that the defendants “ were entitled to receive and retain and had a lien upon all money collected for freights or from any other source in connection with said steamer Julienne, and were entitled to hold and apply the same in reimbursement of the advances made by these defendants to said owner. All said moneys so received were so applied by these defendants.”
The defense on its face seems to be sufficient in law and the demurrer thereto was not well taken.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the plaintiff to withdraw the demurrer upon payment of said costs.
Clarke, P. J., Smith and Page, JJ., concur; Dowling, J., dissents.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to withdraw demurrer on payment of said costs.
See Greenhill v. Delano, No. 1 (193 App. Div. 842).— [Rep.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.