Burgin v. Ryan

The plaintiff has brought an action to recover certain payments alleged to be due her under the provisions of a *123separation agreement dated November 1, 1929. The amended answer sets up as a defense a modification in part of the original agreement by a supplemental agreement dated May 28, 1931. The plaintiff moved to strike out this defense as sham, and for summary judgment. The motion was denied.

The very persuasive argument of appellant’s counsel would very likely lead to its logical conclusion had the complaint set up a cause of action based on this superseding supplementary agreement. But…