Case Name: Willard Richards, App'lt, v. Nathaniel A. Reed et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12-08
Citations: 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: Willard Richards, App’lt, v. Nathaniel A. Reed et al., Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 56
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
Willard Richards, App’lt, v. Nathaniel A. Reed et al., Resp’ts.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed December 8, 1893.)
Pleadings—Counterclaim.
A demand against the plaintiff and another jointly is not a legal counterclaim. •
Oayley, Bancus & Fleming, for pl’ff and app’lt; Warren F. Sammis, for def’ts and resp’ts.

Opinion:
Newburger, J.
This is an appeal from so much of an interlocutory judgment herein as overrules a demurrer interposed by the plaintiff to a defense set forth in the answer. The action is brought upon a promissory note made by the defendant Reed to the order of the defendant Yandewater, and indorsed by the latter. The plaintiff sets forth that the note was duly transferred, sold and delivered for value to the plaintiff herein. The answer interposed by defendants alleges: First, that the indorsement by the defendant Yandewater was without consideration, and for the accomodation of the defendant Reed, the maker of the note, and one Anna Richards, the wife of the plaintiff. Second, alleges certain facts arising out of a real estate transaction between the plaintiff and his wife, parties of the first part, and the defendant Reed, alleging a breach of said contract on the part of the plaintiff, and that the defendant Reed sustained damages by such breach in the sum of $2,000, which damages the defendants counterclaim against the plaintiff's claim herein. The plaintiff demurred to the answer, and the justice at special term sustained the demurrer as to the first defense, but overruled the demurrer as to the second defense. The demurrer as to the second defense should have been sustained. Upon an examination of the pleadings it is apparent that the second defense and counterclaim, as they are set forth in the joint answer of the defendants, are not available to both "of the defendants. The contract for the breach of whjch the counterclaim is interposed is a joint obligation of the plaintiff and his wife. It is not a claim against the plaintiff individually. It was not a demand against the plaintiff alone, but against the plaintiff and another jointly bound with him.
The judgment herein must therefore be reversed, and the demurrer sustained, with leave to defendant to answer upon payment of costs of demurrer and appeal.
Ehrlich, Oh. J., concurs.