Calhoun v. Hallen

New York Supreme Court

Calhoun v. Hallen

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 155

DecidedSeptember 15, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 155 (Calhoun v. Hallen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calhoun v. Hallen, 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 155 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

In Allis v. Leonard (46 N. Y., 688, reported in full, 22 Alb. Law Jour., 28), it was held, that in an action on a note alleged to have been transferred to the plaintiff, an answer admitting the making [156]*156and delivery of the note$ and denying every allegation except those expressly admitted, was a good denial of the transfer and authorized the defendant to prove that the note belonged to the payee.

This form of answer, viz.: a denial of everything not admitted, is thus approved of by the Court of Appeals. Here the third clause of the answer is a denial of every allegation set forth in the complaint, except as herein admitted, qualified or explained. We think that the decision of the Court of Appeals clearly authorized the form of denial which is used in this third clause, and that that decision overruled some earlier cases cited by the plaintiff.

For these reasons we think the answer was not frivolous, and that the judgment and order should be reversed, with costs.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bockes and Boardman, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam :

In Allis v. Leonard (46 N. Y., 688, reported in full, 22 Alb. Law Jour., 28), it was held, that in an action on a note alleged to have been transferred to the plaintiff, an answer admitting the making [156]*156and delivery of the note$ and denying every allegation except those expressly admitted, was a good denial of the transfer and authorized the defendant to prove that the note belonged to the payee.

This form of answer, viz.: a denial of everything not admitted, is thus approved of by the Court of Appeals. Here the third clause of the answer is a denial of every allegation set forth in the complaint, except as herein admitted, qualified or explained. We think that the decision of the Court of Appeals clearly authorized the form of denial which is used in this third clause, and that that decision overruled some earlier cases cited by the plaintiff.

For these reasons we think the answer was not frivolous, and that the judgment and order should be reversed, with costs.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bockes and Boardman, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-hallen-nysupct-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack