Legal Opinion

Arnold v. Chesebrough

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

Decided December 13, 1887PublishedCited by 1 opinion

In Equity. On motion to amend answer.

1Opinion of the CourtLacombe, J.

The practice formerly prevailing in this state of examining into the meritoriousness or morality of defenses sought to be interposed by way of amendment to the answer is no longer valid. Gilchrist v. Gilchrist, 44 How. Pr. 317; Sheldon v. Adams, 41 Barb. 54; Pike v. Bingham. 11 Reporter 750. When law or equity recognizes a defense as proper to be interposed to the plaintiffs’ claim, it should be treated upon a motion of this kind as entitled to the same consideration as any other defense. There is nothing upon the papers to show that plaintiffs’ situation has changed for the worse in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sheldon v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Gilchrist v. Gilchrist's ExecutorsNew York Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Salisbury v. BennettU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API