Belsena Coal Mining Co. v. Liberty Dredging Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Belsena Coal Mining Co. v. Liberty Dredging Co.

27 Misc. 191, 57 N.Y.S. 739

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Misc. 191 (Belsena Coal Mining Co. v. Liberty Dredging Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belsena Coal Mining Co. v. Liberty Dredging Co., 27 Misc. 191, 57 N.Y.S. 739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

Among other things, motion was made herein for severance of the action as to certain counterclaims set up in the answer, and for striking out as sham two defenses, one of [192]*192specific denials claimed to be nearly in the very terms of the com-. plaint, and the other of allegations that the contract in question. was made in the state of Eew York by a foreign corporation, the plaintiff, which had not complied with,, and was,, acting contrary, to the statute relating to the transaction, of business in this state by foreign corporations. '

So much of the application as was for severance was addressed to the discretion of the City Court and is not here appealable.

Passing by tbe question whether the denials were so precisély in the terms of the complaint^ as to be negatives pregnant, or no defence at all, to the allegations that the plaintiff had not capacity to sue, it is to be held that these allegations are allegations of a substantial defense which, when verified as. here, even if made,,, as. here also, upon information and belief, .might not be stricken out as sham upon affidavits,' however earnest and cogent be the statement of the affiants as tó the falsity of the defendant’s averments, for the defendant is entitled to a trial upon that defense by a-jury. That, is secured by the Constitution. Art. I, § 2. Against loss or inconvenience from the consequent delay - the plaintiff has. no present legal remedy. As suggested in our court ■ of' last resort, the plaintiff, if it be aggrieved by falsehood in the verification of the answer, may bring help to others, if not to itself, if it “ perform the duty incumbent ripen every good citizen to prosecute those known to be guilty of perjury.” ' Wayland v. Tysen, 45 N. Y. 281. The-order appealed from- should be affirmed.

. Ebeedman, P. J.,. and Leventbitt, J.,' concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent.

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

MacLean, J.

Among other things, motion was made herein for severance of the action as to certain counterclaims set up in the answer, and for striking out as sham two defenses, one of [192]*192specific denials claimed to be nearly in the very terms of the com-. plaint, and the other of allegations that the contract in question. was made in the state of Eew York by a foreign corporation, the plaintiff, which had not complied with,, and was,, acting contrary, to the statute relating to the transaction, of business in this state by foreign corporations. '

So much of the application as was for severance was addressed to the discretion of the City Court and is not here appealable.

Passing by tbe question whether the denials were so precisély in the terms of the complaint^ as to be negatives pregnant, or no defence at all, to the allegations that the plaintiff had not capacity to sue, it is to be held that these allegations are allegations of a substantial defense which, when verified as. here, even if made,,, as. here also, upon information and belief, .might not be stricken out as sham upon affidavits,' however earnest and cogent be the statement of the affiants as tó the falsity of the defendant’s averments, for the defendant is entitled to a trial upon that defense by a-jury. That, is secured by the Constitution. Art. I, § 2. Against loss or inconvenience from the consequent delay - the plaintiff has. no present legal remedy. As suggested in our court ■ of' last resort, the plaintiff, if it be aggrieved by falsehood in the verification of the answer, may bring help to others, if not to itself, if it “ perform the duty incumbent ripen every good citizen to prosecute those known to be guilty of perjury.” ' Wayland v. Tysen, 45 N. Y. 281. The-order appealed from- should be affirmed.

. Ebeedman, P. J.,. and Leventbitt, J.,' concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 191, 57 N.Y.S. 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belsena-coal-mining-co-v-liberty-dredging-co-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack