Opinion
December 30, 1942.
Action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by reliance upon defendant's warrant of authority to make contracts on behalf of a third party, which warrant is alleged to have been false. Order denying plaintiff's motion, under rule 109, Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out the first separate defense on the ground that it is insufficient in law affirmed, without costs. It was proper to deny the motion because the defense may stand for what it is worth. It would appear that the proof may show that section 234, Debtor and Creditor Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 12), is applicable. The adequacy of the separate defense, therefore, whether complete or partial, will have to be tested in the light of the proof adduced. Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.