Matten v. Head

E.D. Pennsylvania

Matten v. Head

29 F.R.D. 190

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 29, 1961

DocketCiv. A. No. 29695

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F.R.D. 190 (Matten v. Head) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matten v. Head, 29 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Pa. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIM, Senior District Judge.

In this diversity action the complaint avers that a Rhode Island court granted defendant letters of administration on the estate of his decedent. In his answer to the complaint defendant denies this generally. He also denies that the Rhode Island court “had authority” to grant the letters and denies that he is “the proper and duly constituted administrator” of the estate. As a separate defense he avers that he “is not a duly authorized representative” of the estate.

Plaintiff has moved, under F.R.Civ.P. rule 12(f), 28 U.S.C.A., to strike these averments from the answer on the ground that they fail to state a legal defense and are immaterial and irrelevant.

If the averments can be substantiated they would amount to a complete defense, although not on the merits.

It may be that the letters were not properly granted, but since there has been no discovery or other ascertainment of the facts there are no facts on the record from which this can be determined. Consequently, the motion to strike will be denied.

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

GRIM, Senior District Judge.

In this diversity action the complaint avers that a Rhode Island court granted defendant letters of administration on the estate of his decedent. In his answer to the complaint defendant denies this generally. He also denies that the Rhode Island court “had authority” to grant the letters and denies that he is “the proper and duly constituted administrator” of the estate. As a separate defense he avers that he “is not a duly authorized representative” of the estate.

Plaintiff has moved, under F.R.Civ.P. rule 12(f), 28 U.S.C.A., to strike these averments from the answer on the ground that they fail to state a legal defense and are immaterial and irrelevant.

If the averments can be substantiated they would amount to a complete defense, although not on the merits.

It may be that the letters were not properly granted, but since there has been no discovery or other ascertainment of the facts there are no facts on the record from which this can be determined. Consequently, the motion to strike will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F.R.D. 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matten-v-head-paed-1961.