Crook v. Licourt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Masterson v. . TownshendNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Gutta-Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. HolmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Theiling v. MarshallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Martin v. PalmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Weiss v. GoffenNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- Longshore v. Albany Garage Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937