Case Name: George Crawford, Respondent, v. The West Side Bank, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-03-30
Citations: 92 N.Y. 631
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Crawford, Respondent, v. The West Side Bank, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 631–631

Head Matter:
George Crawford, Respondent, v. The West Side Bank, Appellant.
The complaint herein set forth a demand for §398.71; the answer denied liability and set up a counter-claim for §301.29. The trial court found with defendant and gave judgment against plaintiff for the counterclaim. The General Term reversed the judgment. Held, that the amount of the two claims constituted “ the matter in controversy,” within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 191, subd. 3), and that this court had j urisdiction on appeal.
(Argued March 20, 1883 ;
decided March 30, 1883.)
This was a motion to dismiss an appeal.
The opinion, which is given in full, states the facts.
“ The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant $398.71, as money due. The defendant denied liability therefor, and asked judgment upon a counter-claim, for $301.29, as money theretofore advanced to the plaintiff at his request. The two sums make $700, and represent the amount of a check alleged by the plaintiff to have been wrongfully paid by the defendant from his money. The trial court held with the defetidant that it was properly paid, and gave judgment in its favor against the plaintiff for the counter-claim, $301.29. On the other hand the General Term went with the plaintiff, reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. The controversy at the General Term necessarily involved the demands on both sides, and in case of a new trial, a recovery by the plaintiff will not ■ only charge the defendant with the payment of $398.71, but extinguish the claim made by it. These two amounts, therefore, constitute £ the matter in controversy,’ and give this court jurisdiction. (Code of Civil Proc., § 191, subd. 3.)
“ The motion to dismiss the appeal should, therefore, be denied, with costs.”
D. M. Porter for motion.
John G. Shorn opposed.

Opinion:
Danforth, J.,
reads for denial of motion.
All concur.
Motion denied.