Case ID: nys_20/html/0810-01.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

Ingersoll v. Dixon.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    November 18, 1892.)
    Insufficient Answers—Motion to Strike Out.
    Objections to the sufficiency of defenses contained in an answer should be raised by demurrer, and not by motion to strike out.
    Appeal from special term, New York county. •
    Action by Robert G. Ingersoll against Amzi G. Dixon for libel. From an order denying a motion to strike certain defenses out of the answer as irrelevant, redundant, and scandalous, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien, J.
    
      R. H. Griffin, for appellant. W. C. Beecher, for respondent.
   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 $10 costs and disbursements.