Legal Opinion
Pierce v. Bristol
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 2, 1927PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This is a motion under Rules of Civil Practice, rule 109, subdivision 6, to strike defenses consisting of new matter from an answer upon the ground that they are insufficient in law. It is analogous to a motion for judgment dismissing the complaint under Rules of Civil Practice, rule 106, and is equivalent to a demurrer, although demurrer as such has been abolished. (Code Civ. Proc. § 494; Rules Civ. Prac. rule 109, subd. 6; Civ. Prac. Act, § 277; Hull v. Hull, 225 N. Y. 342, 355.)
“ A motion to strike out a portion of a pleading has been said to be in substance a demurrer to that portion…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Baxter v. . McDonnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Johnston v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Hull v. . HullNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Cuykendall v. DoeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. National City Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Garey v. Perez F. Huff Co.New York Supreme Court · 1929
- Krantz v. GarmiseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961