Metzger v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Four actions, as follows: Helena Metzger against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, Hannah E. Boardman against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, Edmund J. Curry against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, and Edmund J. Curry against the New York Elevated Railroad Company. From judgments for plaintiff in each case, entered on orders striking out the answers as frivolous, defendants appeal. Reversed.
1Per curiam
These actions were brought to recover damages awarded the plaintiffs in proceedings to acquire by condemnation certain easements for the use of the defendants. The same defense is interposed in each action, and the rule applicable to one is to all. It has been so long settled by repeated decisions in the court of appeals (Youngs v. Kent, 46 N. Y. 672; Strong v. Sproul, 53 N. Y. 497; Cook v. Warren, 88 N. Y. 39) and in this court (Barney v. King, 13 N. Y. Supp. 685) that a pleading should not be stricken out as frivolous unless it is so plainly so that neither argument nor illustration is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Strong v. . SproulNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Youngs v. . KentNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Barney v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Metzger v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co.New York Supreme Court · 1893