New York Supreme Court, 1876

Schultze v. Rodewald

Schultze v. Rodewald
New York Supreme Court · Decided October 15, 1876 · Barrett
1 Abb. N. Cas. 365

Counsel

George W. Van Siclen, for the motion., George C. Genet, opposed.

Schultze v. Rodewald

Opinion of the Court

Barrett, J.

Judge Westbrook did not grant leave to renew on fresh papers, nor has the plaintiff moved for leave to renew. She has simply moved a second time on fresh papers for what has been once denied. This cannot be done.

Apart from that, there is as good reason to deny the motion on the merits now as there was before. The defendant is entitled to have his examination passed upon *367by a jury. True, he admits what he seems to have denied ; but in view of the court of appeals’ decisions we cannot make a precedent for striking out general denials, whether specific or by ignorance. There must be common law evidence before a jury. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

No appeal was taken.

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