Brady v. Nally

The Superior Court of New York City

Brady v. Nally

26 Abb. N. Cas. 367

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMarch 15, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Abb. N. Cas. 367 (Brady v. Nally) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brady v. Nally, 26 Abb. N. Cas. 367 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, J

The cause was finally submitted to the referee, who has decided the issues, and the motion for leave to amend the reply is made too late. The amendment applied for is not to sustain the referee’s judgment, but to make it irregular. Another objection to the motion is, that the reply sought to be interposed sets up an independent counterclaim to extinguish another counterclaim pleaded by the defendant; a practice not authorized (66 How. Pr. 150, 13 Civ. Pro. R. 265). In addition to this, it does not appear that the alleged counter-claim belonged to the plaintiff at the commencement of the action (11 Civ. Pro. R. 205 ; 3 St. R. 269), and if it had so appeared, it would have demonstrated that it was a proper subject to allege in the complaint as an affirmative cause of action, but not in the reply.

For these reasons the motion for leave to serve the amended reply must be denied, with $10 costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McAdam, J

The cause was finally submitted to the referee, who has decided the issues, and the motion for leave to amend the reply is made too late. The amendment applied for is not to sustain the referee’s judgment, but to make it irregular. Another objection to the motion is, that the reply sought to be interposed sets up an independent counterclaim to extinguish another counterclaim pleaded by the defendant; a practice not authorized (66 How. Pr. 150, 13 Civ. Pro. R. 265). In addition to this, it does not appear that the alleged counter-claim belonged to the plaintiff at the commencement of the action (11 Civ. Pro. R. 205 ; 3 St. R. 269), and if it had so appeared, it would have demonstrated that it was a proper subject to allege in the complaint as an affirmative cause of action, but not in the reply.

For these reasons the motion for leave to serve the amended reply must be denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Abb. N. Cas. 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-nally-nysuperctnyc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack