Case Name: Helen M. Rodgers, Respondent, v. William J. Rodgers and Another, as Executors of John C. Rodgers, Deceased, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-12-22
Citations: 203 A.D. 682
Docket Number: 
Parties: Helen M. Rodgers, Respondent, v. William J. Rodgers and Another, as Executors of John C. Rodgers, Deceased, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 203
Pages: 682–686

Head Matter:
Helen M. Rodgers, Respondent, v. William J. Rodgers and Another, as Executors of John C. Rodgers, Deceased, Appellants.
First Department,
December 22, 1922.
Contracts—action on joint contract—pleadings — defense contradicting plain terms of contract is demurrable — defense of waiver, abandonment or rescission insufficient in absence of allegation of consideration therefor.
A defense, in an action on a joint contract, which contradicts the plain terms thereof is demurrable.
In an action on contract a defense of waiver, abandonment or rescission is insufficient if it fails to allege a consideration therefor.
Finch and Smith, JJ., dissent, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, William J. Rodgers and another, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 13th day of October, 1921, as sustains the plaintiff’s demurrer to the first, second and third defenses and the counterclaim contained in the answer.
Thomas F. Conway of counsel [Joseph A. Kellogg and Thomas E. O’Brien with him on the brief], for the appellants.
Harry A. Redmond [Joseph F. Murray of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Greenbaum, J.:
The Court of Appeals has interpreted the agreement upon which this action is based as a joint one (Rodgers v. Rodgers, 229 N. Y. 255), and we can find no ambiguity in the agreement which would justify us in permitting the defendants by answer in their first and second separate defenses to attempt to contradict its plain terms. The third separate defense is insufficient in that it fails to allege any consideration for the waiving, abandonment or rescission of the contract.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Clarke, P. J., and Merrell, J., concur; Smith and Finch, JJ., dissent.