Case Name: MENDOZA v. STEIMER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-11-10
Citations: 95 N.Y.S. 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: MENDOZA v. STEIMER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 95
Pages: 603–603

Head Matter:
MENDOZA v. STEIMER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 10, 1905.)
Pleading—Genebal Denial—Evidence Admissible.
Evidence that plaintiff is not the real party in interest is not competent under a general denial.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 39, Cent. Dig. Pleading, § 1293.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District. Action by Henry Mendoza against Joseph Steimer. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Nicoll, Anable & Lindsay (De Lancey Nicoll, John D. Lindsay, and Archibald R. Watson, of counsel), for appellant.
Martin Dolphin (Joseph Folliard Perdue, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant's chief grievance appears to be that he was not permitted to show that the money bet belonged to one DeLacy, and not to plaintiff, and therefore that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. No such plea is contained in the answer, and the evidence was not competent under a general denial. Smith v. Hall, 67 N. Y. 50; Spooner v. D" L. & W. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 22, 21 N. E. 696. In other respects the case is not to be distinguished from Mendoza v. Rose, 44 Misc. Rep. 241, 88 N. Y. Supp. 938.
Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.