Case Name: KATE J. MUSGROVE, Appellant, v. THE MAYOR, &c., Respondent
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-02-02
Citations: 19 Jones & S. 528
Docket Number: 
Parties: KATE J. MUSGROVE, Appellant, v. THE MAYOR, &c., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 51
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
KATE J. MUSGROVE, Appellant, v. THE MAYOR, &c., Respondent.
Decided February 2, 1885.
Form of denials under Code, §§ 500, 526.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Truax and O’Gorman, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint.
The court at General Term said :—“ The negligence of the defendant was specifically denied in the answer, and this case differs in that respect from the case of Hoffman v. N. Y. &c. R. R. Oo. (50 Super. Ct. 403), in which case the denial was of ‘ each and every allegation in the complaint, except as herein admitted, qualified or explained,’ and the answer did not contain a general, or specific denial of any of the allegations of the complaint. The denial in this action is ‘upon information and belief,’ which is a form of denial permitted by section 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not inconsistent with section 500 (Brotherton v. Downey, 21 Hun, 436). I can, however, see no objection to the pleading using the exact words of section 500, and deny ‘any knowledge or information of the allegations of the complaint sufficient to form a belief.’ No facts were shown on the trial that would warrant the jury in coming to the conclusion that the defendant had been negligent in allowing the ice to remain on the sidewalk. The complaint was rightly dismissed, for the reasons stated by the court on the trial. ”
Benjamin Yates, for appellant.
D. J. Dean, for respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by Truax, J.; Sedgwick, Ch. J., and O'Gorman, J., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.