Fleury v. Roger
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion to strike out answer. The action was brought on a promissory note,—declaration in the usual form,—containing an allegation that the plaintiff was the lawful holder and owner of the note, &c. The answer alleged a that the defendant has no knowledge to form a belief whether said plaintiff is the lawful owner and holder of the two promissory notes set forth in the complaint in this action, as therein alleged.”
Read the full summary
Motion to strike out answer. The action was brought on a promissory note,—declaration in the usual form,—containing an allegation that the plaintiff was the lawful holder and owner of the note, &c. The answer alleged a that the defendant has no knowledge to form a belief whether said plaintiff is the lawful owner and holder of the two promissory notes set forth in the complaint in this action, as therein alleged.” And an allegation, hy way of new matter, that at the time of making and giving the notes the plaintiff agreed, that when the notes fell due the defendant might renew them, and give…
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
Held the case under advisement a few days, and ordered the answer to be stricken out as sham and frivolous, with $10 costs.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Armstrong Cork & Insulation Co. v. PironeCity of New York Municipal Court · 1930