Legal Opinion

Burlingham v. Gargan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided March 15, 1910PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term. Action by Charles C. Burlingham and others against Patrick E. Cargan. From an order denying a motion to make amended answer more definite and certain, and to direct defendant to serve an amended answer separately stating and numbering affirmative defenses and counterclaims, plaintiffs appeal.

1Per curiam

The plaintiff has moved for an order that defendant should make his amended answer more definite and’'certain, and further ordering the defendant to serve a second answer separately setting forth and numbering his counterclaims. The justice at Special Term denied,the motion.

*927We think that the denial of the motion to make more definite and certain was proper, but, since the answer sets forth as a separate defense and counterclaim, first, an agreement by the brokers to protect him against loss upon a purchase of stock; second, a wrongful sale of the stock; and, third, an agreement to make good…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Burlingham v. GarganAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1910

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

Powered by the Exa API