Case ID: nys_122/html/0252-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAWES v. WELLS et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    March 11, 1910.)
    Pleading (§ 79)—Answer—Sufficiency.
    Any answer is good enough tor a bad complaint,
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 160; Dec. Dig.. § 79.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Gertrude D. Hawes against Oliver J. Wells, impleaded',, etc. From an order granting a motion to strike out certain portions of the answer of defendant Wells, he appeals.
    Réversed.
    See, also, 121 N. Y. Supp. 380, 382.
    Argued before CLARKE, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN* SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
    H. H. Snedeker, for appellant.
    Gilbert Ray Hawes, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § numbes in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We recently held that this complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Any answer is. good enough for a bad complaint. Therefore this answer was good enough.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs.