Tamisier v. Cassard
New York Supreme Court
Motion for judgment on an answer as frivolous. This action was brought by Alfred Tamisier against Carolina Cassard and Andres Cassard, upon a promissory note for $263.81. The complaint alleged that it was indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff, and that he was the lawful owner and holder.
Read the full summary
Motion for judgment on an answer as frivolous. This action was brought by Alfred Tamisier against Carolina Cassard and Andres Cassard, upon a promissory note for $263.81. The complaint alleged that it was indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff, and that he was the lawful owner and holder. The defendants answered, denying that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note, and averring that one Victor Giraudy was the real owner and holder thereof, and the real party in interest. Plaintiff moved for judgment on this answer as frivolous. I. This answer is clearly frivolous. (Brown a.…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, J.
—The Code directs that actions shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. (§ 111.)
The answer here alleges that one Victor Giraudy is the real party in interest in this action.
The plaintiff now moves for judgment, on account of the frivolousness of the answer.
The section above referred to makes it necessary that the' plaintiff should be the real party in' interest.
I cannot consider such an issue as frivolous. The plain direction of the Code must be disregarded, before the issue can be considered immaterial.
The motion is denied, without costs.
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. DrakeNew York Supreme Court · 1877