Case ID: misc_9/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pryor, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick S. Myers, Appellant, v. Moses S. Rosenback, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    June, 1894.)
    The Court of Common Pleas cannot allow a supplemental answer in an action removed to that court from a District Court, hut an amended answer setting up such supplemental matter may he allowed on terms.
    Appeal from order allowing matter of supplemental pleading to be incorporated in the answer by amendment.
    
      Hamilton R. Squier, for appellant.
    
      Otto Horwitz, for respondent.
   Pryor, J.

The distinction between an amended and a supplemental answer is only in the time when the matter of the defense occurred or came to the knowledge of the pleader. But time does not affect the substance of the defense. If good in an amended it is good in a supplemental answer; and if good in a supplemental it is good in an amended answer. To incorporate in an answer supplemental matter by way of amendment violates only a technical rule of pleading, and is without effect upon the substantial rights of the parties. It is the distribution of substantial justice, however, irrespective of formal rules of procedure, that is the function of District Courts in disposing of the litigation before them. Were they to be fettered by all the technical and recondite rules of practice with which judges and counselors in courts of record are presumed to be conversant, they would surely miscarry in the attainment of that cheap and speedy justice ” which is the ■end of their institution.

We are content to affirm the order on the opinion at Special Term. 7 Mise. Rep. 560.

Bookstaver and Bischoff, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.