From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tompkins v. Veigel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1959
8 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Opinion

June 18, 1959

Appeal from the Monroe Special Term.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Kimball, Williams, Bastow and Halpern, JJ.


Order insofar as it grants plaintiff's motion affirmed and insofar as it denies defendant's motion reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The allegations of the complaint do not state a cause of action at law for the return of the purchase price based upon a prior rescission. There is no prior rescission alleged in the complaint. Moreover, the prayer for relief asks for a rescission. Likewise, the allegations of the complaint do not state a cause of action for damages based upon an affirmance of the contract. There is no allegation of damage nor is the prayer for relief consistent with that type of action. We conclude that the complaint states a cause of action in equity for a rescission and return of the purchase price. The prayer for relief is also consistent with that type of action. (See Vail v. Reynolds, 118 N.Y. 297, 302, 303; Goldsmith v. National Container Corp., 287 N.Y. 438, 442; 3 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 34, p. 547.) All concur.


Summaries of

Tompkins v. Veigel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1959
8 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)
Case details for

Tompkins v. Veigel

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. TOMPKINS, Respondent, v. ERNEST W. VEIGEL, JR., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 18, 1959

Citations

8 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Citing Cases

Amalfi, Inc. v. 428 Co.

Here, plaintiff sought only damages, and did not seek equitable relief, in connection with its tortious…