Case Name: PRICE v. WALKER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-04-22
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: PRICE v. WALKER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 493–497

Head Matter:
PRICE v. WALKER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 22, 1910.)
1. Contracts (§ 332 )—Contract to Assign—Action for Breach—Complaint.
Plaintiff sued to recover $1,000 paid to defendant for an assignment of his bid for certain premises at a judicial sale and to recover $500 damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendant agreed in writing with her that in consideration of $1,000 he would assign to her the terms of sale, his bid. and his right to receive the sheriff’s deed, referring to a copy of the agreement annexed to the complaint as an exhibit which acknowledged the receipt of $1,000 in consideration of which defendant agreed to enter into such agreement as might be proper in the premises, with reference to- his assigning the terms of sale or his right to receive the sheriff’s deed to premises described, toy plaintiff by his attorney, and further charged that defendant refused to assign the terms of sale or his bid, or his right to receive the deed, and had not returned to plaintiff the amount so paid to him, though plaintiff had duly demanded such assignment and return of the money so paid. Held, that the complaint stated a cause of action, and that a demurrer thereto, for want of sufficient facts, was frivolous.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. § 1615; Dec. Dig. § 332. ]
2. Pleading (§ 222 )—Permission to Answer After Demurrer.
Plaintiff sued to recover $1,000 paid for 'an assignment of defendant’s bid for certain premises at a judicial sale and to recover $500 damages, alleging a contract to assign the bid by defendant’s agent. After the sustaining of a demurrer to the complaint as frivolous, defendant applied for leave to answer. The proposed answer denied any information or belief as to whether his agent did make such a contract, and on information and belief alleged that he did not. The paper offered as evidence of the contract was ambiguous in form, and, without the other allegations of the complaint as to its meaning, might not be enforceable, and was alleged not to be the true contract of the parties. The complaint also charged that the property was afterwards sold without plaintiff’s consent, which the proposed answer denied. Held, that the proposed answer pleaded a defense, and that the court erred in refusing to grant defendant leave to file the same.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent Dig. § 570; Dec. Dig. § 222. ]
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
Action by Edith Y. Price against Ephraim A. Walker. From a judgment for plaintiff on an order overruling defendant’s demurrer and from an order denying defendant’s motion for permission to answer, he appeals.
Order directing judgment affirmed, and order denying leave to answer reversed with leave.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, BURR, THOMAS, and RICH, JJ.
Chauncey E. Treadwell, for appellant.
George W. McKenzie, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BURR, J.
On the 25th 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 of appeal also recites that it is taken from the judgment entered in accordance therewith. This judgment was not entered until the 18th 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 into an enforceable 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' a deed of the 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 defense. 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 ambiguous in form, and which without the other allegations of the complaint as to its meaning and effect might not be enforceable, 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 defendant to plead - over should be reversed, arid the -motion for leave to plead granted, provided that the answer be served within 10 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. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., who reads for affirmance.