Carpenter v. Reynolds
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Boole County. The appeal is from an order striking out a portion of the answer as irrelevant and redundant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Boole County. The appeal is from an order striking out a portion of the answer as irrelevant and redundant. The action is to recover the amount alleged to be due on a promissory note for $313.10, given March 23, 1882, by the defendant to the firm of Bois, Pay & Conkey, of Chicago, Illinois, payable July 15, 1882. It is alleged in the complaint that such note was transferred, before due and for a valuable consideration, to the plaintiff, and that he is the lawful owner and holder thereof. The answer, besides the allegations which were permitted to remain…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, C. J.
If the portion of the answer stricken out was immaterial or redundant, then there is no error in the order. Secs. 2683,2684, E. S. ' The inquiry then is, Was this the character of the answer which was stricken out ? Ee-dundancy in pleading is the introduction of matters foreign to or not necessary to the cause of action or defense stated. 2 Bouvier’s Law Diet., 524. Or, under the code, redundancy may consist in the needless repetition of material aver-ments, or in the detail of what may be the evidence by which issuable facts are established. Subd; 2, sec. 2646, and subd. 2, sec. 2655, E. S.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brewster v. CarmichaelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Noonan v. OrtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Peeper v. PeeperWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Hall v. ErwinNew York Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- LaDuke v. E. W. Wylie Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1950
- Wiesmann v. ShanleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Fisher v. SchuriWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889