Staten Island Midland Railroad v. Hinchcliffe
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out denials pleaded in defences as irrelevant.
1Opinion of the CourtGaynor, J.
The answer here is strung out to the length of fifteen pages when it could easily be contained in two. It is one of those unscientific bungles which are a perplexity and trial to trial judges, and a reproach to a learned bar. It is obvious that the learned counsel who argued this motion for the defendant did not draw it. Instead of plainly stating the denials and “-defences ”, so as to show the issues at a glance, it seems intended to *50make it as difficult as possible to find out what the issues are. First in it come several admissions, as though the pleader feared that things not denied would…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Douglass v. Phenix InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Linton v. Unexcelled Fireworks Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Stieffel v. TolhurstAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- South Dakota v. McChesneyNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Cruikshank v. Press Publishing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- North British & Mercantile Insurance v. ParnellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Burkert v. BennettNew York Supreme Court · 1901
- Dixon v. PruettNevada Supreme Court · 1919
- Knowles v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1902
- Milligan v. Brooklyn Warehouse & Storage Co.New York Supreme Court · 1901
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.