Richter a. McMurray
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment. This action was brought by Ernest Richter against Henry R. Murray and Robert S. Tait, upon two promissory notes of $111.98 each. ■ The complaint, omitting formal portions, was as follows: “ 1st. That there is due to the plaintiff from the defendants, the sum of one hundred and eleven dollars and ninety-eight cents, with interest thereon from May 4th, 1858, on a written instrument, of which the following is a copy, to’ wit: “6 $111t9ó8o Mew York, May…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment. This action was brought by Ernest Richter against Henry R. Murray and Robert S. Tait, upon two promissory notes of $111.98 each. ■ The complaint, omitting formal portions, was as follows: “ 1st. That there is due to the plaintiff from the defendants, the sum of one hundred and eleven dollars and ninety-eight cents, with interest thereon from May 4th, 1858, on a written instrument, of which the following is a copy, to’ wit: “6 $111t9ó8o Mew York, May 1st, 1857. “ ‘Twelve months after date, we promise to pay to the order of Wm. McMurray, one hundred and eleven T9o8y…
1Opinion of the CourtBrady, J.
The answer in this case is sufficient in form. It contains a denial of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in the complaint, or any or either of them. The allegations in the complaint are, that there is a sum due on one note, set out, and then a further sum on another note, also set out. The complaint does not allege that the plaintiff holds notes drawn by the defendants, and indorsed by the payee, which have not been paid, and then demand judgment, but simply alleges that there is an amount due on each note. But, assuming…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Willson v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Byrne v. HegemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Cumins v. Lawrence CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892