Case Name: HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO. (A CORPORATION), APPELLANT, v. DANIEL BERMES, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1947-09-12
Citations: 136 N.J.L. 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO. (A CORPORATION), APPELLANT, v. DANIEL BERMES, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO. (A CORPORATION), APPELLANT, v. DANIEL BERMES, RESPONDENT.
Submitted May 2, 1947
Decided September 12, 1947.
For the appellant, Abram S. Block and Bernard P. Hughes.
For the respondent, Walscheid & Rosenkranz (Milton Rosenkranz).

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The appeal in this case raises the question of whether the complaint was untrue in alleging that the instrument in suit was a specialty. Under the rule laid down in Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 134 N. J. L. 250, it obviously was not, and the allegation in the complaint to the contrary was false.
There is no point in the argument that the question should have been raised by plea and not on motion to strike. The purpose of the present Practice Act was to simplify pleading.
The' judgment under appeal will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McGeehan, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Wachenfeld, J. 1.