Simpson v. Loft
New York Supreme Court
The action is upon a promissory note. The answer set up new matter by way of defence—to such new matter the plaintiff replied. On the 11th of April a motion was made to strike out a part of the reply, as redundant or irrelevant. That motion was granted. The order provided that the defendant should have ten days from the 19th of April to demur to the reply.
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
The pleading called a reply is authorized by the 153d section of the Code. By referring ‘to that section, as it was amended in 1852, it will be seen that it is only where “the answer contains new matter constituting a counter claim,” that the plaintiff may reply. In a case like that before me, there is no more authority for such a pleading, than there would be for a rejoinder to it. Nor is there any need of such a pleading. The law gives to the plaintiff all the benefit of such a pleading without it. The 168th section declares that the allegation of new matter in an answer,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hodges v. HuntNew York Supreme Court · 1856