Steepy v. Public Service Corp.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Steepy v. Public Service Corp.

56 A. 127, 65 N.J. Eq. 529, 20 Dickinson 529, 1903 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 10

DecidedNovember 13, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A. 127 (Steepy v. Public Service Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steepy v. Public Service Corp., 56 A. 127, 65 N.J. Eq. 529, 20 Dickinson 529, 1903 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 10 (N.J. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Reed, Y. C.

This motion takes the place of exceptions which may be taken to an answer for scandal, impertinence and for insufficiency.

[530]*530I do not perceive that the answer is obnoxious to au exception, upon either of these grounds. It is not scandalous, nor impertinent, uor insufficient, in the sense in which that word is used in this connection. Insufficiency means that a portion of the bill has not been answered, to which portion the complainant is entitled to an answer. It does not mean that it is insufficient in the sense that it presents no equitable defence. The rule controlling the court on the hearing of these motions is well stated by Vice-Chancellor Stevens in Doane & Jones Lumber Company v. Essex Building and Land Company, 14 Dick. Ch. Rep. 142. This rule has been enforced by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, Vice-Chancellor Grey, the chancellor and myself.

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

Reed, Y. C.

This motion takes the place of exceptions which may be taken to an answer for scandal, impertinence and for insufficiency.

[530]*530I do not perceive that the answer is obnoxious to au exception, upon either of these grounds. It is not scandalous, nor impertinent, uor insufficient, in the sense in which that word is used in this connection. Insufficiency means that a portion of the bill has not been answered, to which portion the complainant is entitled to an answer. It does not mean that it is insufficient in the sense that it presents no equitable defence. The rule controlling the court on the hearing of these motions is well stated by Vice-Chancellor Stevens in Doane & Jones Lumber Company v. Essex Building and Land Company, 14 Dick. Ch. Rep. 142. This rule has been enforced by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, Vice-Chancellor Grey, the chancellor and myself.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A. 127, 65 N.J. Eq. 529, 20 Dickinson 529, 1903 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steepy-v-public-service-corp-njch-1903.