Case ID: ny-st-rep_11/html/0888-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH STERN, App’lt and Resp’t, v. SAMUEL N. EISNER, Resp’t and App’lt.
    Pleading—Motion to strike out part of answer as irrelevant.
    Appeal by plaintiff from part of order denying motion to strike out portion of amended answer as irrelevant and redundant.
    Appeal by defendant from part of the same order requiring the answer to he made more definite and certain.
    
      Geo. W. Carr, for app’lt; G. P. Avery, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam

—There is no merit in either of these appeals. It is impossible to see what harm the plaintiff can suffer by having the possible course of Ins-adversary’s testimony pointed out by the averments in the answer which he seeks to have stricken out.

As to the appeal from that portion of the order which requires the counterclaim to he made more definite and certain. It does not appear that the court below exceeded the hounds of a sound discretion.

The order must he affirmed, with costs.