D. H. Hayden Co. v. Mitchell-Tappen Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTownley, J.
Motion by plaintiff, under subdivisions 5 and 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out the third, fourth and fifth separate and distinct defenses and counterclaims contained in answer. A defense equivalent to or provable under a general denial is not demurrable and will not be stricken out because the facts alleged therein might be proved under a general denial. (Staten Island Midland R. Co. v. Hinchliffe, 170 N. Y. 473 [1902].) There is no impropriety in combining a defense and a counterclaim where it is claimed that the same facts constitute both. (De Witt v. New York…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Staten Island Midland Railroad v. HinchliffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- DeWitt v. New York Herald Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
3Cited by2 opinions
- Capitol Auto Stores, Inc. v. Bradley, New York County Courts1956
- Mark v. PrenticeNew York Supreme Court · 1959