Temple v. Murray & Ely
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion to strike out the defendant’s answer as “ frivolous,” and for judgment under section 247 of the Code. The complaint alleges that on the 3d day of June 1851, the defendants made their promissory note in writing, by which they promised, for value received, to pay to the order of the plaintiff one thousand dollars at the Otsego County Bank, six months from the date of the note; that the said note became due before the commencement of this action, yet the…
Read the full summary
This was a motion to strike out the defendant’s answer as “ frivolous,” and for judgment under section 247 of the Code. The complaint alleges that on the 3d day of June 1851, the defendants made their promissory note in writing, by which they promised, for value received, to pay to the order of the plaintiff one thousand dollars at the Otsego County Bank, six months from the date of the note; that the said note became due before the commencement of this action, yet the defendants have not paid the same. The plaintiff further alleges in his complaint that he is now the lawful owner and' holder…
1Opinion of the Court
Crippen, Justice.
This branch of the answer is a substantial compliance with the first subdivision of section 149 of the Code, and in its legal effect is a denial that the plaintiff was the lawful owner or holder of the note mentioned in the complaint.
The object of the pleader seems to have been to force the plaintiff to establish by proof on the trial, that he was the owner and holder of said note; or to make good by proof that allegation in the complaint. The making of the note is not denied by the answer, and therefore stands admitted. The plaintiff under, the allegation of the answer, in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Nye v. PowerNew York Supreme Court · 1910