Legal Opinion

Crook v. Licourt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 17, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The action is in ejectment. The order below strikes out various paragraphs of the second amended complaint as irrelevant, repetitious and evidentiary and directs a more definite and certain description of the property in dispute. - The complaint in its present form seems to be the result of earlier attacks on the pleadings. Appellant contends that it sets forth as a first cause of action all facts necessary in ejectment, pleaded in the usual form, showing plaintiff’s title without alleging its derivation, though as incidential to a description of the premises such derivation appears; and that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Masterson v. . TownshendNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Gutta-Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. HolmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  3. Theiling v. MarshallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  4. Martin v. PalmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Weiss v. GoffenNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Longshore v. Albany Garage Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API