Case ID: nj-eq_65/html/0529-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Reed, Y. C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sarah A. Steepy v. The Public Service Corporation of New Jersey.
    [Filed November 13th, 1903.]
    An answer is only insufficient when a portion of the bill, to which the complainant is entitled to an answer, has not been answered, and is not insufficient merely because it does not present an equitable defence.
    On motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the answer filed, because the same and each of them are irrelevant, impertinent, immaterial and insufficient.
    
      Mr. John E. Baches, for the complainant.
    
      Mr. Robert 8. Woodruff, for the defendant.
   Reed, Y. C.

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

I 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.