Case Name: Edith Y. Price, Respondent, v. Ephraim A. Walker, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-04-22
Citations: 138 A.D. 85
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edith Y. Price, Respondent, v. Ephraim A. Walker, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 85–91

Head Matter:
Edith Y. Price, Respondent, v. Ephraim A. Walker, Appellant.
Second Department,
April 22, 1910.
Pleading — breach of contract to assign bid on judicial sale — allegations stating cause of action — answer stating defense.
A complaint brought to recover moneys paid to the defendant on his promise to assign a bid made by him on a judicial sale of lands, and for damages, is not defective as containing no allegation that thé deféndant refused to enter into an enforcible agreement to assign the bid where it alleges that he, having agreed in writing for a consideration to assign the bid, and having given a receipt for the consideration containing an agreement to “enter into such agreement as may be proper in the premises with reference to his assigning the- terms of sale," etc., if it containa further allegation that he refuses to assign the “terms of. sale ” or his bid, and without the consent of the plaintiff took a deed of the premises and refused to return'the consideration on demand. A demurrer to such complaint is frivolous.
A request of the defendant to plead over should not be denied where the proposed answer alleges upon information and belief that his agent did not make the agreement with the plaintiff alleged in the complaint and denies that the property was afterwards sold without the plaintiff’s consent. The defendant is not required to deny any information or belief as to whether his agent did ' make such contract.
Woodward, J., dissented, in part,, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Ephraim A. Walker, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in -the office Of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of October, 1909, upon an order made at'the Kings County Special Term and entered on the 27th day of August, 1909, overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the amended complaint, also from the said order upon which such judgment was entered, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 15th day of September, 1909, denying the defendant’s motion for permission to answer.
. Cha-uncey E. Treadwell [.Edward M. Grout and Paul Grout. with him on the brief], for the. appellant.
George W. McKenzie, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Burr, J.:
On. the 27th day of August, 1909, an order was entered in this action directing judgment in favor of plaintiff upon the ground that defendant's demurrer to the amended complaint was frivolous. From that order an appeal is taken to this court. The notice óf appeal also recites that it is taken; from the judgment entered in accordance therewith. This judgment was not entered until the 18tli day of October, 1909. In the meantime defendant moved for leave to answer the complaint, submitting a proposed amended answer. This motion was denied,, and from the order denying such motion an- appeal is also taken. .
I agree with Mr. Justice Woodward that the. demurrer was frivolous. The'suggestion in appellant's, brief that-the complaint contains no allegation that defendant refused to. enter iutq an enforciblé agreement to assign the bid, I think, is met by-the allegation of the complaint that defendant declined to assign the bid itself, and without the consent of plaintiff took á deed of said premises. I, therefore, vote to affirm the order directing judgment upon the demurrer.
I dissent from so much of the said opinion as holds that the order refusing leave to plead over was properly made. The proposed answer sets up a good défense. In effect the complaint alleges an agreement by defendant's agent.. Defendant does not deny any information or belief as to whether his agent did make such a contract ; upon information and belief he alleges that he did not. This may be all that he could do, and, if true, it constitutes a defense. Conceding that the demurrer admits the legality of the written paper, if it is a contract, the answer denies that the written paper is a contract binding upon the defendant, because it was not executed by his authority. The accompanying affidavit not only does not contradict or discredit the statement in the- answer, but shows that the paper, which is ámbiguous - in form, and which without the other allegations of the complaint as to its meaning and effect might-not be enforcible, was not the true contract between the parties. The complaint alleges that the property was afterwards sold without plaintiff's consent. The answer denies this. This would certainly raise a question as to the damages, for-plaintiff seeks to recover not only the money which she paid, but the loss of her bargain.
The order directing judgment upon defendant's demurrer as frivolous should be affirmed. The order denying leave to defend ant to plead over should be reversed, and the motion for leave to plead granted, provided that the answer be served within ten days after the entry of the order herein, the judgment entered to stand as security pending the trial of the issues in this action. Neither of the parties should have costs of the appeal against the other.