McGovern v. Bulman-Warner Paint Co.

New York Supreme Court

McGovern v. Bulman-Warner Paint Co.

55 N.Y.S. 767, 28 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 212

DecidedOctober 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 55 N.Y.S. 767 (McGovern v. Bulman-Warner Paint Co.) 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

McGovern v. Bulman-Warner Paint Co., 55 N.Y.S. 767, 28 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 212 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The complainant proceeds upon promissory notes, and also upon a cause of action for goods sold and delivered, and the answer meets all the issues tendered. Defendant was entitled to serve an answer traversing the allegations of the complaint as to this last cause of action without application to the court for leave; and section 1778 of the Code does not relate to defenses to separate causes of action, but applies to the service of an answer as such, and, therefore, where the answer, in one aspect, is such as may be served without leave, because not going to a cause of action upon an instrument for the payment of money, the statute cannot be read as requiring that permission be first obtained to include in such answer defenses to causes of action of the latter class, when joined in the same complaint. This section of the Code cannot be extended in its operation beyond its very terms (Shorer v. Publishing Co., 119 N. Y. 483, 23 N. E. 979); and as was held in the case of Bradley v. Fertilizing Co., 2 Civ. Proc. R. 50, these provisions of the statute must he construed to have reference only to an action where the sole issue is upon the class of demands expressly therein described. ■

Motion granted, with $10 costs. Settle order on notice.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The complainant proceeds upon promissory notes, and also upon a cause of action for goods sold and delivered, and the answer meets all the issues tendered. Defendant was entitled to serve an answer traversing the allegations of the complaint as to this last cause of action without application to the court for leave; and section 1778 of the Code does not relate to defenses to separate causes of action, but applies to the service of an answer as such, and, therefore, where the answer, in one aspect, is such as may be served without leave, because not going to a cause of action upon an instrument for the payment of money, the statute cannot be read as requiring that permission be first obtained to include in such answer defenses to causes of action of the latter class, when joined in the same complaint. This section of the Code cannot be extended in its operation beyond its very terms (Shorer v. Publishing Co., 119 N. Y. 483, 23 N. E. 979); and as was held in the case of Bradley v. Fertilizing Co., 2 Civ. Proc. R. 50, these provisions of the statute must he construed to have reference only to an action where the sole issue is upon the class of demands expressly therein described. ■

Motion granted, with $10 costs. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.Y.S. 767, 28 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgovern-v-bulman-warner-paint-co-nysupct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack