Edson v. Dillaye
New York Supreme Court
The complaint is on a promissory note made by all the defendants to the plaintiff, or order, payable at the Rochester Bank. The complaint set out the note and alleged that the plaintiff was the lawful owner and holder thereof, and that the defendants had not paid the same or any part thereof, but that they were justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor.
Read the full summary
The complaint is on a promissory note made by all the defendants to the plaintiff, or order, payable at the Rochester Bank. The complaint set out the note and alleged that the plaintiff was the lawful owner and holder thereof, and that the defendants had not paid the same or any part thereof, but that they were justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor. The defendants in their answer admit the making of the note, “ but they deny the allegation of non payment of the said note as set forth in said complaint; also they deny that they are indebted to said plaintiff for said note, or by reason of…
1Opinion of the CourtWelles, J.
I am satisfied that the answer in this case, excepting that part of it which admits the making of the note, is entirely frivolous. Section 152 of the Code provides that sham and irrelevant answers and defences may be stricken out on motion. By section 247, if a demurrer, answer or reply be frivolous, the party prejudiced thereby may apply to a judge of the court, either in or out of court, for judgment thereon, and judgment may be given accordingly. Section 149 declares that the answer of the defendant must contain, 1st. A general or specific denial of each material allegation of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mendenhall v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Cary v. Western Union Telephone Co.New York Supreme Court · 1888
- Columbia National Bank v. Western Iron & Steel Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1896
- Clark v. MullenNebraska Supreme Court · 1884
- Louis v. Empire State InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1894