Hadden v. New York Silk Manufacturing Co.
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal by defendants from an order granted at Special Term, striking out the defendant’s answer as sham and frivolous. The action was for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from an order granted at Special Term, striking out the defendant’s answer as sham and frivolous. The action was for goods sold and delivered. The answer was a denial of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, whether at the time mentioned in the complaint, the plaintiffs were co-partners. ££ And the defendants deny that on the twenty-sixth day of ££ February, 1859, or at any other time, the plaintiffs sold and ,11 delivered unto the defendants the goods, wares and mer- “ chandise in the complaint mentioned, or any goods, wares, “ or merchandise…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Daly, F. J.
The defence interposed is that the goods were sold to one Foote, and not to the defendants ; and it appears by the affidavits read by the defendants upon the motion that the plaintiffs admitted before the action was brought, that they had refused to. give the company .any further *390credit, that they had sold the goods to, Foote, and had commenced this suit at the request of Foote, who had indemnified them against the costs. This admission, which was not contradicted, qualified, or questioned in the affidavits read in support of the motion, was an answer to-the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brewster v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1826
3Cited by5 opinions
- Albany County Bank v. RiderNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Witherell v. WibergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1877
- Farnsworth v. HalsteadNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Henry Hubber Co. v. McAllesterCity of New York Municipal Court · 1892
- Andreae v. BandlerNew York Supreme Court · 1899