History
  • No items yet
midpage
Royal Bank v. Austin, Nichols & Co.
214 A.D. 793
| N.Y. App. Div. | 1925
|
Check Treatment

Order directing the defendant to sepa^rately state and number defenses, and denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed on the law, and motion for judgment on the pleadings'1 granted. The defense or defenses sought to be set up present no answer to the plaintiff’s claim. The allegation that the plaintiff proved a claim ip the bank- " *794ruptcy proceeding and accepted a dividend thereon is insufficient because there is no allegation that the claim so proved included the claim in suit here. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Royal Bank v. Austin, Nichols & Co.
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jun 15, 1925
Citation: 214 A.D. 793
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.