Case ID: ad_222/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Finch, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

International Acceptance Bank, Inc., Appellant, v. George Reith and Another, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name of Reith & Company, Respondents.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the New York county clerk’s office on March 17,1927, denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike out the first and second defenses contained in the answer, and further denying plaintiff’s motion for an order granting judgment on the pleadings.
   Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and O’Malley, JJ.; Finch, J., dissents.

Finch, J.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse the order appealed from and grant the motion, upon the ground that no custom or usage can control an established rule of law. As directly applicable to the case at bar, see Bigelow v. Legg (102 N. Y. 652). (See, also, Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman, 236 N. Y. 22; Wheeler v. Newbould, 16 id. 392, and Higgins v. Moore, 34 id. 417.)