Smith v. Equitable Mortgage Co.

26 N.Y.S. 180, 74 Hun 26, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 26, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 743
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 1, 1893·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PRATT, J.

The order denying leave to amend the answer was discretionary, and the discretion was wisely exercised. The answer expressly admits the due execution of the contract. The alleged defects in the execution of the contract, if they exist, must have been well known to appellant when the answer was interposed. If they existed, the appellant clearly elected to waive them, and defend the action upon the merits. To such election it should be held. To allow it first to admit, and then, after reflection, to deny, facts upon which the rights of parties rest, would not be in furtherance of justice.

Various other considerations, which need not be stated at length, sustain the order appealed from. Order denying leave to amend answer affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Smith v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 26 N.Y.S. 180, 74 Hun 26, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 26, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 743 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

26 N.Y.S. 180 (Smith v. Equitable Mortgage Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stone v. Insurance Co. of North America
105 P. 856 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)
Diehl v. Robinson
35 Misc. 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1901)
National Pipe-Bending Co. v. Fisher
33 N.Y.S. 1035 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
People ex rel. Burby v. Common Council
33 N.Y.S. 165 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)