Butterfield v. Macomber
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out defendant’s answer as sham. The motion is founded on complaint, answer, affidavits and letters therein referred to.
1Opinion of the Court
Bockes, Justice.
The complaint is entitled “ Fred. Butterfield, assignee of DeForest, Armstrong & Co. vs. Stephen H. Macomber.” It then sets out two causes of action; the first on a promissory note for $283.93, at three months, dated May 6, 1860, made by the defendant to the order of DeForest, Armstrong & Co. ; the second on a note for .$180.33, at six months, dated July 3, 1860, also made by the defendant to the same firm. The complaint also 'sets up a transfer of the notes by DeForest, Armstrong & Co. to the plaintiff, and avers that he is the lawful holder and owner thereof.
By the answer…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gillet v. FairchildNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- United States v. BrooksSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Anderson v. BockSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Lucius W. Stockton and Daniel Moore, in Error v. Harriet BishopSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
- Mier v. CartledgeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sandmeyer v. Dakota Fire & Marine InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Langdon v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Greenbaum v. TurrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Schillinger Fire-Proof Cement & Asphalt Co. v. ArnottNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Magee v. Board of SupervisorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875