Collins v. Suau
The Superior Court of New York City
This was a motion on the part of the plaintiff to strike out certain portions of the defendant’s answer as “ false, sham, irrelevant and redundant.” Also, to show cause why certain other parts should not be stricken out as “ irrelevant,” and, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, why certain words should not be struck out as false and sham.
Read the full summary
This was a motion on the part of the plaintiff to strike out certain portions of the defendant’s answer as “ false, sham, irrelevant and redundant.” Also, to show cause why certain other parts should not be stricken out as “ irrelevant,” and, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, why certain words should not be struck out as false and sham. The motion was also to compel the defendant to make his answer more definite and certain as to certain shares of stock alleged to belong to the plaintiff’s assignors. The justice below granted the motion, and the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Robertson, Ch. J.
The defenses set up in these cases are not in all respects the same, as those set up in the case of the same plaintiff against Coggill, just decided at this present term. The representations of Lindsley & Cotterell charged to be false in the second defenses, are only those contained in the contract for the purchase of the land, and even if the purchase by Lahens was in law a purchase by the company, such representations were not made to the defendants, to induce them to become stockholders, and they could not as such escape liability on the contracts of the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Templet v. BabbittSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1941
- Choppin v. DauphinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Succession of CurtisSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1924
- Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. KokoskySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Lockwood Oil Co. v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.