Corlies v. Delaplaine
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion to strike irrelevant matter out of an answer. It appeared that before moving, the plaintiff had replied to the answer.
1Opinion of the Court
Sandford, J.,
after advising with Oakley, Ch. J., and Paine, J., denied the motion, because the plaintiff had put in a reply *681before he gave notice of his application. He said it was deemed best to require the party to object promptly, to matter alleged to be redundant or irrelevant; and answering the pleading should be considered as a waiver of such objection.
Motion denied.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Raphaelsky v. LynchThe Superior Court of New York City · 1871
- Stilwell v. KellyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1874