Securities Acceptance Corp. v. E. M. Kane Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMarsh, J.
The allegations in the complaint to the effect that the mortgagor “ received the money for which the mortgage was given and retained the same and the benefits thereof ” were unnecessary to a complete statement of the cause of action for foreclosure. The answer, therefore, denies only immaterial allegations and thus raises no issue. The denial is also ineffective because in the form of a negative pregnant. The defense at most would be partial and, if valid at all, would be subject to the requirements of the Civil Practice Act (§ 262). As a corporation cannot plead usury (Gen. Business Law, §…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schanz v. SotscheckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Rollins v. BarnesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Toner v. EhrgottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
- Morris v. DorfmannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
- Reed v. Neu-Pro Contruction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929