In Baylis v. Stimson (110 N.Y. 621), although the answer there considered was condemned as an improper pleading, it was not determined to be frivolous.
Summary of this case from Barton v. GriffinArgued May 3, 1888
Decided June 5, 1888
Adrian Van Sinderen for appellant.
Wm. Pierrepont Williams for respondent.
DANFORTH, J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In Baylis v. Stimson (110 N.Y. 621), although the answer there considered was condemned as an improper pleading, it was not determined to be frivolous.
Summary of this case from Barton v. GriffinFull title:WILLIAM BAYLIS, Appellant, v . FREDERICK J. STIMSON, Respondent
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Jun 5, 1888
It would be an almost endless task to review the various decisions that have been made under this and a…
Whittier Estates v. Manhattan Sav. BankAs Chief Judge CARDOZO put it: "The law assures to a buyer a title free from reasonable doubt, but not from…