Neuss Hesslein & Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.

9 F.R.D. 695, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3306
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 13, 1949
StatusPublished

This text of 9 F.R.D. 695 (Neuss Hesslein & Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.) 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
Neuss Hesslein & Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 9 F.R.D. 695, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3306 (S.D.N.Y. 1949).

Opinion

NOONAN, District Judge.

This is a motion to amend an answer under Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The complaint in this case, alleging breach of contract and ■conversion, was filed on March 7, 1949. The answer, denying the material allegations of the complaint was filed March 28, 1949. The deposition of the plaintiff was taken on April 19, 1949. The defendant now wishes to amend his answer to interpose an affirmative defense to the effect that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest.

The plaintiff, in opposition to this motion, does not argue against the amendment, but, rather, challenges the legal sufficiency of the proposed amended answer. However, ■on a motion to amend, it is not the function of the court to pass on or test the legal sufficiency of the proposed pleading. Rucienski v. Vanedium Corp. of America, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 313.

Motion granted.

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

Related

Rucienski v. Vanadium Corp. of America
6 F.R.D. 313 (W.D. New York, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F.R.D. 695, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neuss-hesslein-co-v-carolina-freight-carriers-corp-nysd-1949.