Gearon v. Sacks

Headnote

A general demurrer to a pleading is bad if any count thereof is good—a demurrer to a reply not sustained on-the ground of usury.

A general demurrer interposed to a reply as a whole cannot be sustained if any count of the reply is good, however bad the residue of it may be.

Where a counterclaim interposed in an action brought to recover upon certain ■ promissory notes neither, sets up nor involves the defense' of usury, a reply thereto setting up special matter is not demurrable on the ground that the transaction set forth in the reply is usurious.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Artlissa V. Gearon, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 24th day of March, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the reply.

• The action was brought on three promissory notes of $20 each, alleged to have been made and delivered by the defendants .to the plaintiff. The defendants, after taking issue upon the allegations of the complaint, allege as a separate defense that in May, 1894, the parties entered into an agreement whereby, for the sum of $850 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, they agreed to pay over to him the sum of $98 for each of ten months, being. the rents as they were collected for that period of ten months, of certain tenants in premises referred to, owned by the defendant Pauline M.' Sacks, and to pay him the sum of $20, and, as security for the payment of the rents as collected, agreed to give him a bond for $1,000, secured by mortgage on the premises; that the rents were paid to the plaintiff as they were collected, but that, as some of the tenants left the premises before the expiration of the ten. months, the amount so collected and turned over to' the plaintiff during that time did not amount to a sum equal to that-which the plaintiff had paid; that, believing that it'was necessary for them to pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to that so paid by him, the defendants paid him $120 for rents collected, and after the expiration of the ten months paid him the further sum -of $42, and that then to make up the balance, $60, they gave to the plaintiff the promissory notes mentioned in the complaint, and that the sum of $162 was paid, and the notes were made under a mistake of fact. They demand' judgment for the amount of the $162 so paid.

To this alleged counterclaim, the plaintiff replied, first, by denying any knowledge or information 'sufficient to form a belief, and, therefore, denied each and every allegation in the answer, constituting a counterclaim, except as thereinafter admitted-. Second, by alleging that, in consideration of $850 paid to him by the plaintiff, the defendant Herman Sacks sold and assigned to the plaintiff certain rents amounting to $980, and which were to become due from occupants of the premises referred' to for ten months, commenc

ing with June, 1894, being the sum of $98 per month; that the defendant agreed to collect that amount each and every of the ten months of the tenants, and pay it over to the plaintiff, and that if, for any cause, whether by removal or otherwise, the tenants failed to pay such rents in advance on the first day of each month, the defendant Herman Sacks was to make up the deficiency and to pay it on or before the tenth of each month; that, to secure the performance of the agreement, the defendants made their bond and mortgage conditioned for the payment to the plaintiff of $98 on the 10th day of June, 1894, and of each month thereafter, until the $980 should be paid; that the defendants paid him only $776, and that the plaintiff, having instituted an action against the defendants upon their bond to recover the residue, $204, the matter was adjusted in such manner that the defendants paid to the plaintiff $20, and gave him their four promissory notes for $20 each ; that three of them are the notes mentioned in the complaint.

The defendants demurred to the entire reply, on the ground that it was “ insufficient in law upon the face thereof.”