Case ID: ny_189/html/0500-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward R. Dunham, Respondent, v. The Hastings Pavement Company, Appellant.
    
      Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Có., 118 App. Div. 137, affirmed.
    (Argued May 21, 1907;
    decided June 4, 1907.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 15,1907, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term ovérruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover on contract.
    . The following questions were certified:
    “ 1. Does the third amended complaint herein state facts sufficient- to constitute a cause of action in the ‘ first cause of action’ therein set forth?
    
      “ 2. Does the third amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the ‘ second and separate cause of action ’ therein set forth ?
    “ 3. Does the third amended complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the ‘ third and separate cause of action5 therein set forth ? ”
    
      Austen G. Fox and John S. Sheppard, Jr., for appellant.
    
      Samuel TJntermyer, Louis Marshall, Abraham Benedict and Bichard II. Mitchell for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.