Legal Opinion

Andreae v. Bandler

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1899Published

Action by Charles H. Andreae and others against Humphrey C. Bandler and others. On motion to strike out the amended answer.

1Opinion of the CourtGtldebsleeve, J.

This is a motion to strike out an amended answer as sham, and also for judgment on said amended answer as frivolous and as insufficient. The motion is therefore based upon both sections 537 and 538 of the Code. There is a well-defined distinction between a sham and a frivolous answer. The former is good upon its face, but false in fact, while the latter denies no material averment in the complaint, and sets up no defense. See Hull v. Smith, 8 How. Prac. 150. The complaint herein sets forth a contract between the parties by which plaintiffs were to manufacture for defendants certain goods, at…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Youngs v. . KentNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. Hadden v. New York Silk Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1860
  3. Ostrom v. BixbyNew York Supreme Court · 1853

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API