Knauth v. Wertheim

New York Supreme Court

Knauth v. Wertheim

14 N.Y.S. 391, 26 Abb. N. Cas. 369

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 391 (Knauth v. Wertheim) 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

Knauth v. Wertheim, 14 N.Y.S. 391, 26 Abb. N. Cas. 369 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.

I see no reason why this application should not be granted. The plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining an order that will prevent the defendant from offering any evidence to sustain the counter-claim, and no good purpose can be subserved by allowing it to remain in the answer. Plaintiff would not be justified in obtaining an allowance based upon this counterclaim, as he has never been called upon to meet it, either by reply or by evidence on the trial. Motion will therefore be granted on payment of $10 costa to the plaintiff for opposing this motion.

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

Ingraham, J.

I see no reason why this application should not be granted. The plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining an order that will prevent the defendant from offering any evidence to sustain the counter-claim, and no good purpose can be subserved by allowing it to remain in the answer. Plaintiff would not be justified in obtaining an allowance based upon this counterclaim, as he has never been called upon to meet it, either by reply or by evidence on the trial. Motion will therefore be granted on payment of $10 costa to the plaintiff for opposing this motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 391, 26 Abb. N. Cas. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knauth-v-wertheim-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack