Kelly v. Kelly
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo
Action by Jennie E. Kelly against Daniel J. Kelly for divorce. Plaintiff’s motion to strike out the third defense of the amended answer, as sham, and to make more definite and certain a portion of the second further and separate defense set up in the answer, denied.
1Opinion of the CourtGildersleeve, J.
This is a motion (1) to strike out the third defense of the amended answer, as sham; and (2) to make more definite and certain a portion of the second further, and separate defense set up in said amended answer. The defense which is claimed to be sham sets forth a former marriage of the plaintiff, stated to be alleged on information derived from the plaintiff herself. The rule is well established that a pleading on information and belief should not be stricken out, as sham, unless it clearly appears that there could not have been any information or belief (see Webb v. Foster, 45 N. Y. Super.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cook v. MattesonSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1890