Sanchez & Haya Co. v. Hirsch

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez & Haya Co. v. Hirsch

27 Misc. 202, 57 N.Y.S. 795

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Misc. 202 (Sanchez & Haya Co. v. Hirsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanchez & Haya Co. v. Hirsch, 27 Misc. 202, 57 N.Y.S. 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

Bor answer the defendant alleged, first, that she had ' no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint, excepting she admitted she had not paid the sum demanded, and, secondly, she alleged for a separate and distinct defense, that at the time of the commencement of the action, and for a long time prior thereto, there was pending in the Supreme Court of the state of New York an action brought by the same plaintiff against her on the same alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint, which action is still undetermined’ and is now af issue. The court struck out the answer “ because the denials therein are stated to be on information and belief, and on the insufficiency of the second defense.” This was proper as to the first defense, for an answer may not be interposed in the Municipal Court in that form. Code Civ. Pro., § 2938; Consol. Act,.§ 1347; Lambert v. Hoffman, 20 Misc. Rep. 331, 332. The second defense should not have been stricken out, as it would be good, if proven.- Code Civ. Pro., § 498. The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed, with costs to the appellant.

Fbeedman-, P. J., and Leventbitt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

MacLean, J.

Bor answer the defendant alleged, first, that she had ' no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint, excepting she admitted she had not paid the sum demanded, and, secondly, she alleged for a separate and distinct defense, that at the time of the commencement of the action, and for a long time prior thereto, there was pending in the Supreme Court of the state of New York an action brought by the same plaintiff against her on the same alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint, which action is still undetermined’ and is now af issue. The court struck out the answer “ because the denials therein are stated to be on information and belief, and on the insufficiency of the second defense.” This was proper as to the first defense, for an answer may not be interposed in the Municipal Court in that form. Code Civ. Pro., § 2938; Consol. Act,.§ 1347; Lambert v. Hoffman, 20 Misc. Rep. 331, 332. The second defense should not have been stricken out, as it would be good, if proven.- Code Civ. Pro., § 498. The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed, with costs to the appellant.

Fbeedman-, P. J., and Leventbitt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 202, 57 N.Y.S. 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-haya-co-v-hirsch-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack