Katin v. Crispel

Burling, C. C. J.

Motion has been made before me, pursuant to R. S. 2:27-124; N. J. S. A. 2:27-124, and Supreme Court rules 40 and 80 to 84; N. J. S. A. tit. 2, to strike out paragraphs 2 and 3 of the answer of the defendant upon the following grounds:

“1. Said answer is sham in part, and in support thereof, we will use the annexed affidavits and will exhibit the original of the contract, upon which this suit is based.

“2. Said answer is frivolous in part, in alleging that a conveyance without the joinder of the defendant’s husband, is not a breach of the defendant’s covenant in said agreement…