Opinion
11-13-1903
STEEPY v. PUBLIC SERVICE CORP. OF NEW JERSEY.
John H. Backes, for complainant. R. S. Woodruff, for defendant.
Suit by Sarah A. Steepy against the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey. On motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the answer. Motion denied.
John H. Backes, for complainant.
R. S. Woodruff, for defendant.
REED, V. C. This motion takes the place of exceptions which may be taken to an answer for scandal, impertinence, and for insufficiency. I do not perceive that the answer is obnoxious to an exception upon either of these grounds. It is not scandalous, nor impertinent, nor insufficient, in the sense in which that word is used in this connection. Insufficiency means that a portion of the bill has not been answered, to which portion the complainant is entitled to an answer. It does not mean that it is insufficient in the sense that it presents no equitable defense. The rule controlling the court on the hearing of these motions is well stated by Vice Chancellor Stevens in Doane & Jones Lumber Company v. Essex Building & Land Company, 59 N. J. Eq. 142, 45 Atl. 537. This rule has been enforced by Vice Chancellor Van Fleet, Vice Chancellor Grey, the Chancellor, and myself.