Case Name: Madeline M. Duck et al., Respondents, v. Robert H. McGrath et al., Defendants, and Sarah E. Bergen et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-10-20
Citations: 212 N.Y. 600
Docket Number: 
Parties: Madeline M. Duck et al., Respondents, v. Robert H. McGrath et al., Defendants, and Sarah E. Bergen et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 212
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
Madeline M. Duck et al., Respondents, v. Robert H. McGrath et al., Defendants, and Sarah E. Bergen et al., Appellants.
Duck v. MeG-rath, 160 App. Div. 482, affirmed.
(Argued October 1, 1914;
decided October 20, 1914.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 9, 1914, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiffs for judgment on the pleadings and granted said motion in an action to recover upon a surety bond.
The following question was certified: “Does the amended complaint herein upon its face state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants Sarah E. Bergen and Edith L. Bergen? ”
Glenn M. Gongdon and Edward W. Hatch for appellants.
Michael Schaap and Edward Hynes for respondents.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative, on opinion of Burr, J., below.
Concur: Werner, Hiscook, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ.