Case ID: nys_73/html/0334-01.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

CHAMBERS v. ALLEN et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    May 10, 1901.)
    Action on Note—Pleading—Reply.
    Where, in an action on a note, the answer sets up that plaintiff was not a bona fide holder tor value, before maturity, plaintiff must reply and admit or deny the allegations of the answer.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action on a note by Sidney C. Chambers against Isaac Allen and Alexander S. Bacon. The answer of Bacon alleged that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder for value. From an order requiring plaintiff to reply to the allegations of the answer, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The following is the opinion of the lower court (SCOTT, J.):
    “The defendant Bacon is entitled to know how the plaintiff proposes to meet the affirmative defense set up in his answer. The motion for a reply will he granted.”
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and HATCH, McUAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
    Hill, Sturclce & Andrews, for appellant.
    Nichols & Bacon, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed.