Macqueen v. Babcock
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order at special term, denying leave to serve an amended answer. " The defendant had put in his answer in due time, containing a general denial of the complaint, and other defence. Before the expiration of twenty days after the service of this answer the defendant’s attorney served an amended answer, setting up, besides the former answer, the Statute of Limitations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order at special term, denying leave to serve an amended answer. " The defendant had put in his answer in due time, containing a general denial of the complaint, and other defence. Before the expiration of twenty days after the service of this answer the defendant’s attorney served an amended answer, setting up, besides the former answer, the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff’s attorney returned this answer, upon the ground that the defendant could not amend his answer, setting up a new defence, without special leave of the court. The defendant moved at special term that he…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.* — E. Darwin Smith, J.
—So far as the motion at special term was addressed to the favor of the court, upon the assumption that the defendant could not amend his answer of course within twenty days after service of the original answer, it was rightly decided, and if it was not, the decision resting in discretion would not be reviewable upon appeal. It is not the practice of the court, when a party is obliged to apply for leave to amend his pleading, to_ grant such leave for the purpose of allowing the defendant to set up the Statute of Limitations, usury, or any of that class of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Beach v. President of the Fulton BankCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Hollister v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Thompson v. Minford & CammNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Utica Insurance Co. v. ScottNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Spencer v. TookerNew York Supreme Court · 1861
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bradley v. Phœnix InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Diamond v. Williamsburgh InsuranceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1873
- Fielden v. CaselliNew York Supreme Court · 1863