Jones v. Hawes

The Superior Court of New York City

Jones v. Hawes

24 N.Y. St. Rep. 820

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided March 15, 1889·Published

Opinion

Sedgwick, Ch. J.

I am of opinion that the learned judge below did not err in refusing to strike out the allegations of the answer as irrelevant. They were not irrelevant to the position taken by the defendant, either as a defense or by way of counter-claim. Her position may not have been correct. That could not be determined against her, on the motion to strike out matter as irrelevant.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Truax, J., concurs.

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

Sedgwick, Ch. J.

I am of opinion that the learned judge below did not err in refusing to strike out the allegations of the answer as irrelevant. They were not irrelevant to the position taken by the defendant, either as a defense or by way of counter-claim. Her position may not have been correct. That could not be determined against her, on the motion to strike out matter as irrelevant.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Truax, J., concurs.

Jones v. Hawes, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 820 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

24 N.Y. St. Rep. 820 (Jones v. Hawes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.