Hutchinson v. Bien
New York Supreme Court
Motion for judgment on an answer as frivolous. The three subdivisions of the complaint which the answer purports to deny are as follows: “ II That said defendant as such Beceiver and in order to properly administer his trust and for the benefit of said business, property and estate and the credit of said firm, duly purchased from this plaintiff at various times between January 3rd, 1900, and January 14th, 1902, goods, wares and merchandise amounting to the sum of $506.31,…
Read the full summary
Motion for judgment on an answer as frivolous. The three subdivisions of the complaint which the answer purports to deny are as follows: “ II That said defendant as such Beceiver and in order to properly administer his trust and for the benefit of said business, property and estate and the credit of said firm, duly purchased from this plaintiff at various times between January 3rd, 1900, and January 14th, 1902, goods, wares and merchandise amounting to the sum of $506.31, and that this plaintiff at the request and upon the promise and agreement of said defendant to pay for said goods, wares…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaynor, J.:
The denial is frivolous. It is a negative pregnant. It does not deny each allegation of the designated paragraphs as required by the Code (§ 500), but only denies the allegations in gross “ as alleged ” therein. Now a denial of them “ as alleged ” therein does not deny their substance, and that is the only denial which satisfies the Code requirement. Paragraph II alleges that the purchases were “ at various times ” between certain specified dates, but if all at one time the complaint is good. Hence a restriction of the denial to the precise words and form of the complaint is not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hirshfeld v. KalischerNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Kelly v. SammisNew York Supreme Court · 1898