Blake v. Eldred
New York Supreme Court
• Motion to strike out the whole of an answer as irrelevant, redundant, and immaterial. The action was for the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of real estate. The separate answer of Eldred contained a specific denial, a general denial, and six separate defences; the two latter—the six years and the ten years’ statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
• Motion to strike out the whole of an answer as irrelevant, redundant, and immaterial. The action was for the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of real estate. The separate answer of Eldred contained a specific denial, a general denial, and six separate defences; the two latter—the six years and the ten years’ statute of limitations. The notice of motion divided the application into eight specifications, each being to the whole of a denial or answer, and all to the whole pleading.
1Opinion of the Court
James, Justice.
By the Code, all forms of pleading theretofore existing were abolished, and now the forms of pleadings in civil actions, in courts of record, and the rules by which the sufficiency of pleadings are to be determined, are those prescribed by that act (§ 140). The answer of a defendant must contain—1st. A general or specific denial of each material allegation of the complaint controverted by the defendant, or of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief. 2d. A statement of any new matter constituting a defence, in ordinary and concise language, without…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Arthur v. BrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Quin v. ChambersThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sands v. MaclayMontana Supreme Court · 1874
- Moen v. EldredSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Comerford v. SandsNew York Supreme Court · 1923
- Hall v. United States Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1925
- Littlejohn v. GreeleyNew York Supreme Court · 1861
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.