Silver & Co. v. Waterman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Silver & Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term, bearing date the 19th day of December, 1907, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings, denying the plaintiffs motion to strike out certain portions of the amended supplemental answer.
1Dissent
Gaynor, J. (dissenting):
■ The answer, after several denials pleaded four defences of new matter, to each of which the plaintiff demurred on the ground of its insufficiency in law on the face thereof (Code Civ. Pro. § 494). The defendants’ attorney, as incredible as it may seem, concluded that the trouble was that he had not repeated the denials in the defences. He therefore moved for leave to amend the answer by repeating the denials in each defence, in order to forestall the demurrer. The motion was granted, and now each defence begins with the following redundant verbiage : “ Further…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Goldberg v. . UtleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Stieffel v. TolhurstAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- South Dakota v. McChesneyNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Flack v. O'BrienNew York Supreme Court · 1897
- Eells v. DumaryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.