Case Name: Stewart v. Huntington
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-17
Citations: 2 N.Y.S. 205
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stewart v. Huntington.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 2
Pages: 205–211

Head Matter:
Stewart v. Huntington.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
May 17, 1888.)
1. Action—Inconsistent Causes—Election.
In an action on a contract for the sale of stocks, which stipulated that if plaintiff might demand return of the stocks on repayment of the price, and also that, if defendants should pay any other person for the same kind of stocks more than they paid plaintiff, they would pay him the difference on his sale, where it is sought to enforce liability for failure to return the stocks, and also for refusal to pay such difference, the causes of action are inconsistent, and plaintiff was properly required to elect on which he would proceed.
3. Same—Election—Effect.
The effect of such election, when made by plaintiff, is to eliminate the other cause of action from the record, and no claim can be advanced thereon, on appeal.
Daniels, J., dissents.
Appeal from circuit court, Hew York county.
Action by David Stewart against Collis P. Huntington and others, of whom Huntington only was served, for breach of a contract for the sale of railroad stock, wherein it was agreed that, if plaintiff, after examination, should be dissatisfied, defendant would return the stock to plaintiff on repayment of the price, and also that if defendant should purchase other stock, and pay therefor more than the price paid plaintiff for his stock, he would pay plaintiff the difference. Judgment for defendants, by direction of the court. Plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.
Joseph H. Choate and Evarts, Choate & Beaman, for appellant. James C. Carter and Bangs, Stetson, Tracy & McVeagh, for respondent.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
In view of the conclusion arrived at by the general term upon the previous appeal in this case, the same questions being involved upon this appeal, the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with costs. After the reversal by the general term of the judgment heretofore entered upon the first trial, when the case came up at the circuit for a retrial, the pleadings were the same as they were before, and presented the same causes of action and defenses. In the complaint were alleged two inconsistent causes of action, and at the conclusion of the evidence the plaintiff was called upon to elect upon which cause of action he claimed to recover. The court was justified in compelling this election, because, as has already been said, the two causes of action were inconsistent, and a recovery must be had upon either one or the other, and could not be claimed upon both.
The plaintiff having made his election as to which of these causes of action he claims a recovery, no claim upon this appeal could possibly be advanced upon the other, because such cause of action was by the election necessarily eliminated from the record. The general term having already decided that no recovery could be had upon the cause of action selected by the plaintiff, the necessary consequence was that the court was justified in directing the verdict which it did, and it was probably for the purpose of reviewing the previous decision of the general term that this course was adopted by the counsel for the plaintiff. The same questions being involved on this appeal as were involved when the case was before the court before, the same conclusion should be arrived at, and the judgment affirmed, with costs, as has already been stated.
Brady, J., concurs.