Hartford National Bank v. Beinecke
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Bernhard Beinecke and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Few York Special Term, bearing date the 8th day of February, 1897, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Few York, denying their motion to require the plaintiff to reply to new matter set up in their answer.
1Opinion of the Court
Patterson, J.:
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion of the defendants Beinecke and Hesdorfer to compel the plaintiff to reply to new matter contained in their separate answer to the complaint herein.
*475The action was brought against Emil Seidenberg, Joseph Seidenberg, Adolph Stiefel, Bernard Beinecke and Joseph Hesdorfer, and the allegation of the complaint is that the defendants were copartners in trade under the firm name and style of E. Seidenberg, Stiefel & Co. The defendants Beinecke and Hesdorfer in their answer deny that they were, or either of them was, at any time a partner…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Ingen v. . WhitmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
3Cited by1 opinion
- Barker v. O'GradyNew York Supreme Court · 1916