Maison De Marchands Industrielle Ltee-Industrial Merchants, Ltd. v. New York Silicate Book Slate Co.

S.D. New York

Maison De Marchands Industrielle Ltee-Industrial Merchants, Ltd. v. New York Silicate Book Slate Co.

13 F.R.D. 15, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4957

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 20, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 F.R.D. 15 (Maison De Marchands Industrielle Ltee-Industrial Merchants, Ltd. v. New York Silicate Book Slate Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maison De Marchands Industrielle Ltee-Industrial Merchants, Ltd. v. New York Silicate Book Slate Co., 13 F.R.D. 15, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4957 (S.D.N.Y. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

WEINFELD, District Judge.

With the exception of a dictum in Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., Inc., D.C., 48 F.Supp. 979, there is agreement that a plaintiff may plead a counterclaim in a reply. Downey v. Palmer, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 83; Mid-States Products Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 592; Warren v. Indian Refining Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 281; Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. John Bowen Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 274 ; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, § 13.08, pp. 22-23.

These holdings are based on Rule 13(a), 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which * * * the pleader has against any opposing party” and the language in Rule 18(a), “The plaintiff in his complaint or in a reply setting forth a counterclaim ¹ and the defendant in an answer setting forth a counterclaim * * Since the complaint, the defendant’s first counterclaim and the plaintiff’s counterclaim thereto all arise out of the same contract, the rule is especially appropriate here.

The defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s counterclaim to the defendant’s first counterclaim is denied.

Settle order on notice.

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

WEINFELD, District Judge.

With the exception of a dictum in Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., Inc., D.C., 48 F.Supp. 979, there is agreement that a plaintiff may plead a counterclaim in a reply. Downey v. Palmer, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 83; Mid-States Products Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 592; Warren v. Indian Refining Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 281; Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. John Bowen Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 274 ; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, § 13.08, pp. 22-23.

These holdings are based on Rule 13(a), 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which * * * the pleader has against any opposing party” and the language in Rule 18(a), “The plaintiff in his complaint or in a reply setting forth a counterclaim ¹ and the defendant in an answer setting forth a counterclaim * * Since the complaint, the defendant’s first counterclaim and the plaintiff’s counterclaim thereto all arise out of the same contract, the rule is especially appropriate here.

The defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s counterclaim to the defendant’s first counterclaim is denied.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F.R.D. 15, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maison-de-marchands-industrielle-ltee-industrial-merchants-ltd-v-new-nysd-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack