Case ID: ny-st-rep_49/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert G. Ingersoll, App’lt, v. Amzi C. Dixon, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed November 18, 1892.)
    
    Pleading—Irrelevant defenses.
    Objections to sufficiency of defenses should be raised by demurrer and not by motion to strike out.
    Appeal from order denying motion to strike out the second, third and fourth defenses of the answer as irrelevant, redundant and scandalous, in action for libel.
    
      R. H. Griffin, for app’lt; W. C. Beecher, for resp’t.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

We see no reason upon this appeal for interfering with the order made by the court below. The objections made to the defenses sought to be stricken out seem to,be principally that they were insufficient as such defenses. We are of -opinion that the more orderly course requires that such objections should be raised by demurrer, rather than by motion to strike out. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

O’Brien, J., concurs._