Winslow v. Ferguson
New York Supreme Court
This was an appeal from an qrder made at Special Term, held in Onondaga county, striking out the answer of the defendant as sham and false. The facts were these : . The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note, made by defendant for the sum of $296, payable to the United States Lightning-rod Company, or bearer, three months from date, with interest.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an qrder made at Special Term, held in Onondaga county, striking out the answer of the defendant as sham and false. The facts were these : . The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note, made by defendant for the sum of $296, payable to the United States Lightning-rod Company, or bearer, three months from date, with interest. The complaint alleged the making of the note, and the delivery to the payee, and its transfer before maturity for a valuable consideration to the plaintiff) presentment, &c. The complaint is verified by the plaintiff’s attorney. The defendant in his…
1Opinion of the Court
Present — Bacon, Foster, Mullin and Morgan, JJ.
By the Court
Mullin, J.
Whatever other ingredients are necessary to constitute a sham answer, it is certain that falsity is the principal one. And unless the answer in this case is false it cannot be stricken out on motion.
There is no ground for claiming that the part of the answer that sets up fraud in obtaining the note is false. The plaintiff concedes, for the purpose of the motion, that it is true; but alleges that so much of the answer as charges that the transfer of the note to him was after maturity, or with notice of any defence to said…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hespe v. Corning Glass Works, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1935
- Rochkind v. PerlmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Rochkind v. PerlmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908