Schultze v. Rodewald
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out an answer as sham. In January, 1861, Henry Shultze, by letter, directed the defendants Henry Rodewald and Franz Kremelburg, who were owing him $2000, in case of his death before its payment, to pay over the same to his sister Dora Schultze.
Read the full summary
Motion to strike out an answer as sham. In January, 1861, Henry Shultze, by letter, directed the defendants Henry Rodewald and Franz Kremelburg, who were owing him $2000, in case of his death before its payment, to pay over the same to his sister Dora Schultze. They wrote a letter in answer, admitting an indebtedness of $2000, and promising to pay it as soon as they could, to him, or in case of his death, to his said sister, with interest at six per cent, from the first of that month, to the date of payment. Henry Schultze afterwards transferred and delivered this acceptance for the value of…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
Judge Westbrook did not grant leave to renew on fresh papers, nor has the plaintiff moved for leave to renew. She has simply moved a second time on fresh papers for what has been once denied. This cannot be done.
Apart from that, there is as good reason to deny the motion on the merits now as there was before. The defendant is entitled to have his examination passed upon *367by a jury. True, he admits what he seems to have denied ; but in view of the court of appeals’ decisions we cannot make a precedent for striking out general denials, whether specific or by ignorance. There must be common law…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Humble v. McDonoughSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1893
- Roby v. HallockNew York Supreme Court · 1878
- Ginnel v. StaynerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- In re BartholomewSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
- King v. WaiteSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.