George v. McAvoy

6 How. Pr. 200
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 6 How. Pr. 200 (George v. McAvoy) 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
George v. McAvoy, 6 How. Pr. 200 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1851).

Opinion

Pratt, Justice.

The motion must be granted. The verification is no part of a complaint under the Code. In serving a new complaint with a verification attached, is no amendment of that pleading. The defendant’s attorney, therefore, was not bound to receive it. At all events, as the allegations were not changed, it required no new answer.

Perhaps it might be well enough for the legislature to provide some way to enable the plaintiff, when he has reason to suspect the good faith of the defendant in putting in his answer, to require him to verify it, but I find no such provision now in the Code. As it now stands, if the plaintiff when he commences the suit chooses not to verify his complaint, he must take the risk of an answer, and if it be palpably untrue he can perhaps move to strike it out, or he may undoubtedly discontinue and commence a new suit. Motion granted with f 10 costs.

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

Related

Spielberg v. Canada Steamship Lines, Ltd.
98 Misc. 304 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Pardi v. Conde
27 Misc. 496 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Fusco v. Adam
11 N.Y.S. 735 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)
Betts v. Kridell
20 Abb. N. Cas. 1 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1887)
McMath v. Parsons
2 N.W. 703 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 How. Pr. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-mcavoy-nysupct-1851.