Legal Opinion

People v. McCumber

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1858PublishedCited by 3 opinions

MOTION for judgment for the plaintiff on account of the answer being sham and frivolous.

1Opinion of the CourtHogeboom, J.

The language of the code, (sec. 152,) is without qualification that “sham and irrelevant answers and *633defenses may be stricken out on motion.” It does not therefore seem proper to limit its application to answers and defenses setting up new matter. Nor would this accomplish the object doubtless intended by the legislature, to wit: to uproot defenses not resting on truth and good faith. Improper delays and contrivances to defeat justice may be as effectually carried out through the agency of pleadings containing mere denials of the plaintiffs’allegations as by those setting up affirmative…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thredgill v. PintardSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
  2. Ladd Ex Rel. Montgomery v. LaddSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
  3. Catlin v. GunterThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
  4. Conklin v. VandervoortNew York Supreme Court · 1853

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jackson Sharp Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of Florida · 1874
  2. Humble v. McDonoughSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1893
  3. Robert Gere Bank v. InmanNew York Supreme Court · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API