Blohm v. Everett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blohm v. Everett

181 A.D. 883

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D. 883 (Blohm v. Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blohm v. Everett, 181 A.D. 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff has a right to have the answer state new matter as a counterclaim separate and distinct from the same plea as a defense. The denials sought to be imported by reference to the former part of the answer were unavailing, because in confused form. If essential to complete the separate plea, and to save application of the rule in pari delicto, such denials can be directly made in the answer .as amended. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

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

Plaintiff has a right to have the answer state new matter as a counterclaim separate and distinct from the same plea as a defense. The denials sought to be imported by reference to the former part of the answer were unavailing, because in confused form. If essential to complete the separate plea, and to save application of the rule in pari delicto, such denials can be directly made in the answer .as amended. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blohm-v-everett-nyappdiv-1917.