Legal Opinion

Morgan v. Bennett

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 1899PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Action by Albert J. Morgan against James Gordon Bennett. Motion by plaintiff to strike out parts of the answer.

1Opinion of the CourtMcADAM, J.

The action is for libel, and the plaintiff moves to strike out the second, third, and fourth partial defenses, pleading facts in mitigation. Such motions are not favored (Baylies, Code Pl. 363; Hoffman v. Wight, 137 N. Y. 621, 33 N. E. 554), and where there is a semblance of a cause of action or defense set up in a pleading its sufficiency cannot be determined on a motion to strike out as irrelevant or redundant (Hatch v. Matthews, 85 Hun, 523, 33 N. Y. Supp. 332; Mason v. Dutcher [Com. Pl.] 33 N. Y. Supp. 689; Walter v. Fowler, 85 N. Y. 621). Whether a defense is or is not bad cannot be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hatch v. MatthewsNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Hoffman v. . WightNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Smith v. American Turquoise Co.New York Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Mason v. DutcherNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fingerhut v. WeinerCity of New York Municipal Court · 1933
  2. Russo v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API