Case Name: James W. Whitehead, Jr., Respondent, v. The Trussed Concrete Steel Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906
Citations: 51 Misc. 664
Docket Number: 
Parties: James W. Whitehead, Jr., Respondent, v. The Trussed Concrete Steel Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
James W. Whitehead, Jr., Respondent, v. The Trussed Concrete Steel Company, Appellant.
Pleading — Complaint or declaration—Anticipating defense.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New'York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
Adolph Hirsch Rosenfeld, for appellant.
Hastings & Gleason, for respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Cubiam.
As the defendant presented accord and satisfaction as a defense the learned trial justice quite prop erly allowed the plaintiff to show that fraud vitiated the settlement between the parties. It was not necessary that the plaintiff should have alleged the fraud in his pleading. He could not be assumed to have known that a defense would be interposed. The record shows no error requiring a reversal.
Present: . Gildebsleeve, Dugbo and Dowling, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.