Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905

Mendoza v. Steimer

Mendoza v. Steimer
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 10, 1905
95 N.Y.S. 603 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Nicoll, Anable & Lindsay (De Lancey Nicoll, John D. Lindsay, and Archibald R. Watson, of counsel), for appellant., Martin Dolphin (Joseph Folliard Perdue, of counsel), for respondent.

Mendoza v. Steimer

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s chief grievance appears to be that he was not permitted to show that the money bet belonged to one DeLacy, and not to plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. No such plea is contained in the answer, and the evidence was not competent under a general denial. Smith v. Hall, 67 N. Y. 50; Spooner v. D„ L. & W. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 22, 21 N. E. 696. In other respects the case is not to be distinguished from Mendoza v. Rose, 44 Misc. Rep. 241, 88 N. Y. Supp. 938.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.