Allen v. Compton
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion on the part of the plaintiff, to strike out the defendant’s amended answer, on the ground that it was for the purpose of delay and to cause the plaintiff to lose the last March circuit, for which term the cause was noticed for trial, at the time the amended answer was served.
Read the full summary
This was a motion on the part of the plaintiff, to strike out the defendant’s amended answer, on the ground that it was for the purpose of delay and to cause the plaintiff to lose the last March circuit, for which term the cause was noticed for trial, at the time the amended answer was served. The cause was put at issue by the service of a reply to the original answer, on the 20th day of February last, and on the same day the defendant’s attorney was served with notice of trial and inquest, fdr the 14th of March ; and on the 9th of March the amended answer was served. The plaintiff’s attorney…
1Opinion of the Court
Shankland, Justice.
The defendant’s counsel contends that the plaintiff’s counsel was irregular in treating the amended answer as a nullity; and that he should have got rid of it by a motion, prior to taking an inquest under § 172; and also that having treated it as a nullity, this motion is unnecessary, &c. As no reported case has been found, deciding what practice *252should be adopted in a case 'where the amended answer is put in, for delay, and will cause the loss of a circuit, I shall dispose of it in analogy to-the practice which prevailed under the old rule in respect of demurrers put in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Seidman v. GeibNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1890
- Duval v. BuschNew York Supreme Court · 1888