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

S.D. New York

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

9 F.R.D. 695, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3306

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 13, 1949·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

9 F.R.D. 695 (Neuss Hesslein & Co. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related