Legal Opinion

Henry Hubber Co. v. McAllester

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided December 15, 1892PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from order striking out defendant’s answer as sham.

1Opinion of the Court

Ehrlich, Ch. J.

The proofs on the part of the plaintiff clearly show that the defendant never supposed he had any defense to the action.

He practically acknowledged the debt in a letter written after suit was threatened, and promised to make no trouble, but confess the debt.

The defendant’s affidavit, in answer to the motion, fails to point out any defense.

He ought, under the circumstances, to have disclosed something meritorious in answer to the motion for judgment.

Though courts seldom grant motions to strike out sham defenses, the power exists (Code, § 538) and may be exercised where it is…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hadden v. New York Silk Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1860

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Humble v. McDonoughSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1893

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

Powered by the Exa API