New York Supreme Court, 1893

Smith v. Equitable Mortgage Co.

Smith v. Equitable Mortgage Co.
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 1, 1893 · Pratt
26 N.Y.S. 180; 74 Hun 26; 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 26; 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 743 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, (Wm. Allen Butler and John Notman, of counsel,) for appellant., John Sabine Smith, for respondent.

Smith v. Equitable Mortgage Co.

Opinion of the Court

PRATT, J.

The order denying leave to amend the answer was discretionary, and the discretion was wisely exercised. The answer expressly admits the due execution of the contract. The alleged defects in the execution of the contract, if they exist, must have been well known to appellant when the answer was interposed. If they existed, the appellant clearly elected to waive them, and defend the action upon the merits. To such election it should be held. To allow it first to admit, and then, after reflection, to deny, facts upon which the rights of parties rest, would not be in furtherance of justice.

Various other considerations, which need not be stated at length, sustain the order appealed from. Order denying leave to amend answer affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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