Bronson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
New York Supreme Court
Motion for judgment on the answer as frivolous. The complaint alleged that the defendant, as the successor of the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company assumed the payment of a bond issued by the latter, dated January 10th, 1852, and payable July 10th, 1870, that the plaintiff was the owner and holder thereof, and had demanded payment in gold which the defendant refused.. The answer denied—1st. Delivery to the plaintiff—2d.
Read the full summary
Motion for judgment on the answer as frivolous. The complaint alleged that the defendant, as the successor of the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company assumed the payment of a bond issued by the latter, dated January 10th, 1852, and payable July 10th, 1870, that the plaintiff was the owner and holder thereof, and had demanded payment in gold which the defendant refused.. The answer denied—1st. Delivery to the plaintiff—2d. Any knowlege or information sufficient to form a belief that the plaintiff was or was not the owner, and holder thereof— 3d. Presentment and demand of payment—4th. That…
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, P. J.
The answer does not set up any valid defense. So far as relates to willingness to pay in currency, it is no defense without a tender, and bringing the money into court. The other points have been decided in other cases referred to.
Motion granted, with $10 costs.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Evansville & Crawfordsville R. R. v. MarshIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Warner v. United States Land & Investment Co.New York Supreme Court · 1889