Majority
p. 357Elizabeth Privensal, Respondent, v. Solveig Privensal, Appellant, and Pan American Airways System et al., Respondents. Argued April 8, 1946; decided May 29, 1946.
p. 358I. There was no triable issue of fact. (Lederer v. Wise Shoe Co., 276 N. Y. 459 .) II. Since all of the material facts essential to defendant-appellant’s right to recover were established by unimpeached documentary evidence, extraneous matters cannot be utilized to defeat her right of recovery. : The papers on the motion disclose the existence of substantial triable issues of fact and law. (Dulari v. Vallabdas Pragji, I. L. R. 13 Bom. 126; Srinivasa v. Sesha, I. L. R. 41 Mad. 197; Krishnayya v. Narayana, I. L. R. 32 Mad. 185; Baldeo Sahai v. Jumna Kunwar, I. L. R. 23 All. 495 ; Devarayan v. Mutturaman I. L. R. 37 Mad. 393; Ford v. DePontes, 30 Beav. 572; Bai Vijli v. Nansa Nogar, I. L. R. 10 Bom. 152; Deivanayaga Padayachi v. Muthu Reddi [1920], I. L. R. 44 Mad. 329.)
Arnold B. Elhind for defendant-appellant.
Jacob W. Friedman and Hyman Katz for plaintiff-respondent.
William J. Butler for China National Aviation Corporation.' defendant-respondent.
The answer of the defendant-appellant contains no counterclaim, and in the absence of such a pleading, an affirmative summary judgment may not he directed in her favor. We decide no other question.
The order should be affirmed, without costs, and the question certified answered in the negative.
Lotjghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacheb and Dye, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, etc.
Cases cited
- Ledeber v. Wise Shoe Co. 276 N. Y. 459 p. 358