Legal Opinion

Virdone v. Globe Bank & Trust Co.

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

Decided April 4, 1932PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The second amended complaint states several causes of action for conversion and money had and received, more or less jumbled together. It is unnecessarily prolix, obscure, repetitious and redundant. If the defendants had moved to strike out the entire complaint on those grounds (Rules Civ. Prac. rules 102, 103), very likely the motion would have been granted and the plaintiff required to make a plain and concise statement of the material facts (Civ. Prac. Act, § 241), separately stating and numbering the causes of action. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 90.) Courts do not favor such long and confused…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gutta-Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. HolmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Warren v. PutmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  2. Gunner v. E. R. Squibb & SonsCity of New York Municipal Court · 1934
  3. Ritter v. NirenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API