Dahlstrom v. . Gemunder
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 11, 1909, which reversed an order of Special Term holding, in effect, that a reply served by plaintiff was frivolous, and directing judgment for defendant on the pleadings and vacated the judgment subsequently entered on said Special Term order.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 11, 1909, which reversed an order of Special Term holding, in effect, that a reply served by plaintiff was frivolous, and directing judgment for defendant on the pleadings and vacated the judgment subsequently entered on said Special Term order. The following questions were certified : “ 1. Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? 2. Are the defendants entitled to judgment on the pleadings including the reply ? ” The' nature of…
1Opinion of the CourtHiscock, J.
The debatable and ultimate question in this case is whether a reply served by the plaintiff, under an order of the court, to an affirmative defense set forth in defendants’ answer was so insufficient that said defense was to be regarded as admitted, and, therefore, as barring plaintiff’s recovery.
Plaintiff brought his action to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty of the quality and make of a violin purchased by him of one Hey through the defendants as the latter’s agents. While his complaint showed that defendants were explicitly acting as agents for a known principal, it…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- City of Chicago v. BabcockIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Ayer v. AshmeadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- First National Bank v. Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Arnett v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Zivi v. EinsteinCity of New York Municipal Court · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Kirschbaum v. . EschmannNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Harley v. . PlantNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Rector of St. James Church v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Fortuna Corp. v. Sierra Blanca Sales Co., Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1976
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.