Schultze v. Rodewald

1 Abb. N. Cas. 365
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Barrett, J.

Judge Westbrook did not grant leave to renew on fresh papers, nor has the plaintiff moved for leave to renew. She has simply moved a second time on fresh papers for what has been once denied. This cannot be done.

Apart from that, there is as good reason to deny the motion on the merits now as there was before. The defendant is entitled to have his examination passed upon [367] by a jury. True, he admits what he seems to have denied ; but in view of the court of appeals’ decisions we cannot make a precedent for striking out general denials, whether specific or by ignorance. There must be common law evidence before a jury. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

No appeal was taken.

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

Schultze v. Rodewald, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 365 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

1 Abb. N. Cas. 365 (Schultze v. Rodewald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ginnel v. Stayner
71 A.D. 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
King v. Waite
70 N.W. 1056 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1897)
Humble v. McDonough
5 Misc. 508 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1893)
In re Bartholomew
41 Kan. 273 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Roby v. Hallock
55 How. Pr. 412 (New York Supreme Court, 1878)
Dillaye v. Blair
2 N.Y. 189 (New York Court of Appeals, 1849)