Savage v. City of Buffalo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiffs, William L. Savage and another, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie-on the 21st day of October, 1899, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Erie Special Term, overruling the plaintiffs’ demurrer to the second and third defenses contained in the defendant’s supplemental answer.
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, J.:
The action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of a quantity of stone flagging.
*1371. The defendant claims that the plaintiffs should not be heard to. allege that the answer is defective, because the complaint itself does, not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This attack • upon the complaint may be made under the well-settled rule that a bad answer is good enough for a bad complaint; and if the complaint is bad, the answer will not be disturbed. (Baxter v. McDonnell, 154 N. Y. 432, 436, and cases there referred to.)
We must, therefore, consider the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Baxter v. . McDonnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Prindle v. . CaruthersNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Spies v. MichelsenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Savage v. City of BuffaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
3Cited by7 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Burdick v. ChesebroughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Pease Oil Co. v. Monroe County Oil Co.New York Supreme Court · 1912
- O'Brien v. DwyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Numan v. WolfAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.