Pittenger v. Southern Tier Masonic Relief Ass'n
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Margaret Pittenger, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of December, 1896, denying her motion to compel the defendant to make its answer more definite and certain.
1Opinion of the Court
Goodrich, P. J.:
The action was brought upon a certificate or policy of insurance issued by the defendant, a copy of which is annexed to the complaint.
The answer specifically admits and denies certain allegations of the complaint and then adds, “ and the defendant denies each and every allegation in said complaint contained not hereinbefore or hereinafter admitted, denied or controverted.”
There was for some years great difference of judicial opinion whether it was good practice for an answer to admit or deny all other allegations of a complaint not thereinbefore admitted or denied, but this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Griffin v. . Long Island Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by5 opinions
- Blum v. BruggemannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Blum v. BruggemannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Duke v. GrantAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Railway Advertising Co. v. SireCity of New York Municipal Court · 1899
- Powe v. A.C.L.R. R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1930