From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cardeza v. Osborn

Supreme Court, Kings Special Term
Jun 1, 1900
32 Misc. 46 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1900)

Opinion

June, 1900.

Edward A. Alexander, for plaintiffs.

William P. Pickett for defendant.


This motion is made under section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure to strike out as "irrelevant" matter pleaded as a "defence". The matter designated constitutes all of the matter so pleaded except a small part of it which if left alone could be to no purpose whatever. Why it is not included in the motion does not appear. The motion must therefore be deemed one to strike out the so-called defence in its entirety. Such a motion cannot be made, even though the matter does not constitute any defence, as seems to be the case here. The Code provision for the striking out of irrelevant matter obviously does not contemplate the striking out of an entire cause of action or of an entire defence for stating insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action or a defence, but only the striking out of irrelevant matter stated in a good cause of action or defence. The remedy is by demurrer (Code Civ. Pro., § 494; Walter v. Fowler, 85 N.Y. 621). It would serve no purpose to refer to the cases apparently to the contrary. Most of them are old, and none of them are authoritative.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Cardeza v. Osborn

Supreme Court, Kings Special Term
Jun 1, 1900
32 Misc. 46 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1900)
Case details for

Cardeza v. Osborn

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD J.M. CARDEZA et al., Plaintiffs, v . ELLEN C. OSBORN, Impleaded…

Court:Supreme Court, Kings Special Term

Date published: Jun 1, 1900

Citations

32 Misc. 46 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1900)
65 N.Y.S. 450

Citing Cases

Security Trust Co. v. Pritchard

Pritchard and the Pritchard Stamping Company in their answers have not observed this rule of practice with…

NOVAL v. HAUG

The decisions are not entirely harmonious, but I think the weight of authority, so far as this department is…