New York Mutual Gas-light Co. v. Mayor of New York

I. The first defense is sham. It is substantially that it is not convenient to pay.

II. The second defense is also frivolous, a. It is in the alternative, b. It does not state that there was no appropria*228tion in the treasury when the contract was made, which is the only defense allowed by the law.

III. If the second defense be not frivolous, then the defendant should be compelled to make it specific by alleging the amount of the appropriation and how it has been spent.