Webster v. Bainbridge
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an.order striking out an answer herein as frivolous, and directing judgment for the plaintiffs for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs. These actions, two in number, were brought to recover for liquors sold to the defendant by the plaintiffs, the original term of credit for which- had expired. The only defense set up in the answer was that the time of payment had been extended.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an.order striking out an answer herein as frivolous, and directing judgment for the plaintiffs for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs. These actions, two in number, were brought to recover for liquors sold to the defendant by the plaintiffs, the original term of credit for which- had expired. The only defense set up in the answer was that the time of payment had been extended. In one action the answer alleged “ that in pursuance of an agreement the defendant made and gave to the said plaintiff his promissory notes, which the said agent then and there received and…
1Opinion of the Court
Taucott, J.:
We tliink the appeal in this case is properly brought from the order to strike out the answer of the defendant as frivolous, otherwise the defendants seem to be remediless, as when the answer is struck out as frivolous, it no longer appears upon the record, and the judgment is entered up in form, as for want of an answer. (Briggs et al. v. Bergen, 23 N. Y., 162; The J. Dixon Crucible Co. v. The New York Steel Works, 57 Barb., 447.) Consequently the motion to dismiss the appeal must be denied.
As to the merits of the order striking out the defendants’ order as frivolous, the answer…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hill v. . BeebeNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Hushes v. WheelerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
- Briggs v. . BergenNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. v. New York City Steel WorksNew York Supreme Court · 1870