Bernstein v. Hamilton
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to recover from the defendants the amount of $1G0, for commissions which they earned upon the sale of certain real estate belonging to, or under the control of, the defendants. No answer has been interposed. The defendants, however, moved in due time that one Aaron Wainess should be substituted as a defendant, for the reason that, as they say, Wainess claims to be entitled to one-half of the commissions, pursuant to an agreement made by him with one of the defendants and one of the plaintiffs. This contract, however, is denied by the plaintiffs. The moving papers do not admit, in terms, a liability existing on the part of the defendants towards the plaintiffs for these commissions, or for anything else. On the contrary, there is an affidavit of merits, in which it is stated that the defendants have a good and substantial defense on the merits to the cause of action set forth in the complaint. In the face of this allegation, the defendants have
The order is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion of inteipleader is denied, with $10 costs. All concur: O’BRIEN, J., in result.
Concurring Opinion
I concur in the result. Too much weight is given to the affidavit. It seems to me that, though one may have a good defense, he need not insist upon it, but may waive it, and in so doing is not prejudiced in making any other application or seeking any other relief to which he is entitled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.