Adams v. Western Maryland R.

S.D. New York

Adams v. Western Maryland R.

161 F. 777, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143

DecidedMay 18, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 161 F. 777 (Adams v. Western Maryland R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Western Maryland R., 161 F. 777, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143 (S.D.N.Y. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The defendant moves for an order nunc pro tunc permitting the issues to be tried in accordance with section 1778 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure. The complaint avers that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the notes sued upon. Section 90 of the negotiable instruments law of New York enables the holder to sue in his own name, but the averment that he is the holder is a material one, which he must prove in order to make out his case. The verified answer of the defendant, denying this averment on information and belief, presents an issue which the defendant is entitled to.have brought before a jury. A verified answer, even if false, cannot be struck out as sham, when it amounts to a general denial of the complaint (Wayland v. Tyson, 45 N. Y. 281), or of any material averment of the complaint (Thompson v. Eric Railway Company, 45 N. Y. 468).

Another material issue is raised by the denial of the sale of the collateral, because the sale made did not conform to the terms of the power of sale. If there were in point of law no sale, the plaintiff at the time of the trial should be treated as still the holder of the collateral and bound to account for its value, either by way of credit on the notes or in another action to be brought by the defendant.

Motion granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The defendant moves for an order nunc pro tunc permitting the issues to be tried in accordance with section 1778 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure. The complaint avers that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the notes sued upon. Section 90 of the negotiable instruments law of New York enables the holder to sue in his own name, but the averment that he is the holder is a material one, which he must prove in order to make out his case. The verified answer of the defendant, denying this averment on information and belief, presents an issue which the defendant is entitled to.have brought before a jury. A verified answer, even if false, cannot be struck out as sham, when it amounts to a general denial of the complaint (Wayland v. Tyson, 45 N. Y. 281), or of any material averment of the complaint (Thompson v. Eric Railway Company, 45 N. Y. 468).

Another material issue is raised by the denial of the sale of the collateral, because the sale made did not conform to the terms of the power of sale. If there were in point of law no sale, the plaintiff at the time of the trial should be treated as still the holder of the collateral and bound to account for its value, either by way of credit on the notes or in another action to be brought by the defendant.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 F. 777, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-western-maryland-r-nysd-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack