Case Name: Alexander Delmar, Respondent, v. The Kinderhook Knitting Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-11-19
Citations: 134 A.D. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander Delmar, Respondent, v. The Kinderhook Knitting Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 558–562

Head Matter:
Alexander Delmar, Respondent, v. The Kinderhook Knitting Company, Appellant.
First Department,
November 19, 1909.
Practice—judgment on pleadings after demurrer — leave to answer — frivolous pleading — complaint.
Where a demurrer to a complaint stating a cause of action is frivolous, the court may grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings under section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but should allow the defendant to withdraw the demurrer and answer within twenty days.
The rule that a pleading'will not be stricken out as frivolous if it require argument to demonstrate the fact, does' not apply on such motion.
A complaint which alleges that plaintiff was employed by defendant as a salesman; that the defendant agreed to pay him a commission on the sales made and thirty-five dollars per week up to January 1, 1910, the “contract to hold good until January 1st, 1910; ” that plaintiff has performed and is performing the contract, but that defendant has failed to pay him the thirty-five dollars for a number of weeks, states a cause of action.
McLaughlin, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, The Kinderhook Knitting Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Mew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Mew York on the 2d day of July, 1909, granting the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
John G. Snyder, for the appellant.
Eugene Cohn, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The motion below was not to overrule the demurrer as frivolous, but was for judgment on the pleadings under section 547 of the. Code of Civil Procedure, the grounds of the motion being, jvrs% that the demurrer was frivolous, and, secondly, that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment upon the pleadings as they stood. ITpon such a motion the time-honored rule that a pleading will not be stricken out as frivolous if it requires argument to demonstrate that it is frivolous does not apply. As we tliink that the complaint clearly states a cause of action, the order was proper and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave, however, to the defendant to withdraw its demurrer and to answer within twenty days on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.; McLaughlin, J., dissented.