Legal Opinion

Salt Springs National Bank v. Hitchcock

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lewis, Edmund H., J.

The plaintiff’s suit is upon a promissory-note in the amount of $40,000 of which W. P. Hitchcock Co., a corporation, is the maker and the defendants are accommodation indorsers.

The plaintiff moves to strike out defendants’ answers and the counterclaims therein contained, upon the ground that they are sham, frivolous and insufficient in law, and for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The defendant Rubin simultaneously moves for leave to serve an amended answer in which he attempts to set up a complete defense not pleaded in his original answer.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Curry v. MacKenzieNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Barrett v. JacobsNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  3. Ettlinger v. . National Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. Elliott v. . BradyNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  5. Benjamin v. . RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1891

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. J. Rose & Co. v. Unity Stove Co.New York Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Federal Deposit Ins. v. LynchDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API