Legal Opinion

Corbett v. Eno

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1861PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion to strike out answer as sham, irrelevant, and frivolous. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, J.

—The complaint in this action is on a promissory note alleged to be made by a firm composed of the four defendants, three of them being general partners and the fourth a special partner. The general partners answer. The only averments in the answer which raise any issue are: “ They deny, on information, that the note mentioned in the complaint was at any time, for value, "transferred to plaintiff, and deny that plaintiff is the holder and owner of the note; and to the contrary thereof, they aver that such note is, and at the commencement ' of this action was, lawfully owned by Orlando M.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. The People v. . McCumberNew York Court of Appeals · 1858

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Van Loon v. GriffinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  2. Patrick v. McManusSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API