New York Supreme Court, 1886

Berrigan v. Oviatt

Berrigan v. Oviatt
New York Supreme Court · Decided February 15, 1886 · Childs
1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 199

Counsel

Thomas Storrs, for the motion., George M. Phelps, for defendant,

Berrigan v. Oviatt

Opinion of the Court

Childs, J.

The answer is bad. The first defense is clearly frivolous. The second defense is in the 'alternative, and relates-to personal transactions between plaintiff and defendant No - affidavits on the part of defendant denied this statement, while • the plaintiff presented affidavits showing the answer false in. every particular.

The motion should be granted overruling the first defense as-frivolous and striking out the answer and the whole thereof as sham, but with leave to the defendant to serve a new answer • in ten days after this order is served on him on payment of ten dollars costs of this'motion, and that if the defendant fail so to-do that the plaintiff have judgment thereon for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs of this action, and ten dob - lars costs of this motion.

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