
    HANOVER NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. ORIENTAL BANK OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    March 13, 1914.)
    Limitation of Actions (§ 180)—Defense—Mode of Taking Advantage.
    The defense of limitations can be raised only by answer and not by motion to strike.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. §§ 670-675, 681; Dec. Dig. § 180.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by the Hanover National Bank of the City of New York against the Oriental Bank of New York. From an order denying a motion to strike out allegations in the complaint, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
    William C. Armstrong, of New York City, for appellant.
    P. S. Dudley, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For .other cases see same topic '& § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date. & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

If the defendant desires to raise the question as to whether or not the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, it cannot be done by a motion to strike out, but must be taken by answer. The order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  