
    SAMUEL P. DINSMORE and others, Respondents, v. THE MAYOR, Etc., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.
    
      Answer—when not frivolous.
    
    Appeal from an order striking out the defendant’s answer as frivolous.
    The plaintiffs alleged that they performed work, labor and services for and at the request of the defendant, its agents and servants, in printing and advertising for it in a newspaper called “ The Stockholder.” The defendant, by the first paragraph of its answer, denied that it requested' or employed the plaintiffs to print or publish the.notices and advertisements named in the complaint and specified in the bill of particulars. In addition to this denial other matters were set up as a further and separate defense. The General Term held, that the denial recited struck at the very foundation, of the plaintiffs’ case, and could not be stricken out as frivolous.
    
      
      E. Delafield Smith, for the appellant.
    
      S. P. Dinsmore, for the respondents.
   Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Order reversed with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.  