White v. Kidd
New York Supreme Court
—This was a motion to strike out a part of the defendant’s answer, upon the ground that it is irrelevant and redundant. The action is brought upon two checks upon the Mechanics’ and Farmers’ Bank, alleged to have been made and delivered by'the defendant to the Canal Bank, one on the 5th of October, 1844, and the other on the 13th of October, 1845. The complaint states that the checks were held and owned by the Canal Bank, until the plaintiff was appointed receiver of its…
Read the full summary
—This was a motion to strike out a part of the defendant’s answer, upon the ground that it is irrelevant and redundant. The action is brought upon two checks upon the Mechanics’ and Farmers’ Bank, alleged to have been made and delivered by'the defendant to the Canal Bank, one on the 5th of October, 1844, and the other on the 13th of October, 1845. The complaint states that the checks were held and owned by the Canal Bank, until the plaintiff was appointed receiver of its effects on the 17th of July, 1848, and that on the 15th of August, 1848, the checks were .'presented to the bank upon which…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
Three modes are provided in the code by which a *69plaintiff may get rid of matters improperly inserted by the defendant in his answer. If it be clear that the answer contains no defence to the action, the plaintiff, under the 247th section, may, at once, apply for judgment, on the ground that the answer is frivolous. If several defences are set up in the answer, of which some do, and others do not, constitute a good defence, the plaintiff may, under the 153d section, put in issue the truth of such defences as he deems sufficient if sustained by proof, and, by demurrer, deny the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bolinger v. HendersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867