Kellogg v. Baker
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion to strike out defences. This action was brought by George Kellogg against William Baker, to recover $480.15. The answer averred three defences. 1. Statute of Limitations. 2. Compromise and release. 3. General denial. Plaintiff had previously moved to strike out the second defence as sham. The motion was heard before Mr. Justice Barbour, who ordered the third defence to be stricken out as sham.
Read the full summary
Motion to strike out defences. This action was brought by George Kellogg against William Baker, to recover $480.15. The answer averred three defences. 1. Statute of Limitations. 2. Compromise and release. 3. General denial. Plaintiff had previously moved to strike out the second defence as sham. The motion was heard before Mr. Justice Barbour, who ordered the third defence to be stricken out as sham. This order was reversed on appeal, with liberty to plaintiff to proceed to a hearing of his motion to strike out the second defence as sham, if so advised. Plaintiff then made his present motion…
1Opinion of the CourtRobertson, J.
After previous orders requiring the defendant to make his second defence more definite, and his amending the same, the plaintiff moved to strike out the part of the answer containing such defence as sham. On that .motion an order was made, striking out the third defence, but not disposing of the motion made. That order was appealed from and reversed, with liberty to the plaintiff to proceed to a hearing of his original motion to strike out the second defence as sham.
The plaintiff has now given notice of a motion to strike out such second defence of the answer as sham, or as not complying with…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown v. HarmonNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Potter v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Thomas v. LeonardNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lyons v. MillerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Stilwell v. KellyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1874