Roby v. Hallock
New York Supreme Court
Motion by plaintiffs to strike out answer as sham, false and untrue. The complaint is upon a promissory note of $160, alleged to have been made by defendant Hallock, payable to the order of the defendants Meacham and Burr, by which she charged her separate estate and which she delivered to the other defendants, who “ duly indorsed the said note in their firm name to the plaintiffs before maturity for value.”
Read the full summary
Motion by plaintiffs to strike out answer as sham, false and untrue. The complaint is upon a promissory note of $160, alleged to have been made by defendant Hallock, payable to the order of the defendants Meacham and Burr, by which she charged her separate estate and which she delivered to the other defendants, who “ duly indorsed the said note in their firm name to the plaintiffs before maturity for value.” The answer is a denial of “ any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether the note stated in the complaint was ever transferred or indorsed to plaintiffs as alleged in…
1Opinion of the CourtAxgle, J.
The only question in the case is whether the court has power to strike out the answer, and if it has the power, I am quite satisfied it should be exercised in this case. That the issue made was a material one, was long since settled (Snyder agt. White, 6 How., Pr., 321; Leach agt. Boynton, 3 Abb. Pr., 1; Sherman agt. Bushnell, 7 How., 171), and it cannot be stricken out as sham (Thompson agt. Erie R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 468).
The plaintiffs’ counsel cites and relies much upon Kay agt. Whittaker (44 N. Y., 566), decided by the commission of appeals, in September, 1871, and after the court of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wayland v. . TysenNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Thompson v. . the Erie Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- The People v. . McCumberNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Fourniquet v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- Schultze v. RodewaldNew York Supreme Court · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Robert Gere Bank v. InmanNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Greenbaum v. TurrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Pfister v. WellsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Loranger v. Big Missouri Mining Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Taylor v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.