Van Dyke v. Gardner

City of New York Municipal Court

Van Dyke v. Gardner

21 Misc. 542, 47 N.Y.S. 710

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided October 15, 1897·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under , the issues framed by the pleadings defendant could not show that the plaintiff was not the real party in- interest, as he failed to allege the facts necessary to' raise sutih an issue. i

The mere legal conclusion “that plaintiff was not the real or proper party in interest ” pleaded by him was not sufficient. Ho error being discovered, judgment affirmed, with costs. .

Present: Fitzsimons, Conlan and Schuchman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Under , the issues framed by the pleadings defendant could not show that the plaintiff was not the real party in- interest, as he failed to allege the facts necessary to' raise sutih an issue. i

The mere legal conclusion “that plaintiff was not the real or proper party in interest ” pleaded by him was not sufficient. Ho error being discovered, judgment affirmed, with costs. .

Present: Fitzsimons, Conlan and Schuchman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Van Dyke v. Gardner, 21 Misc. 542, 47 N.Y.S. 710 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

21 Misc. 542 (Van Dyke v. Gardner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related