Case ID: del_46/html/0343-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Layton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anita N. Wiener, Plaintiff, v. J. Allen Wiener, sometimes known as Jack Wiener, Defendant.
    
      (October 25, 1951.)
    Carey and Layton, J. J., sitting.
    
      Clair J. Killoran for Plaintiff.
    
      Joseph H. Flanzer for Defendant.
    Superior Court for New Castle County,
    No. 535,
    Civil Action, 1951.
   Layton, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

Prior to the adoption of the new Rules of the Superior Court, it was the practice that where the defense to a divorce action was to consist of no more than a general denial of the allegations of the petition, no answer need be filed. Otherwise, a formal answer was required. 2 Wooley, Delaware Practice, Sec. 1636; Banks v. Banks, 6 Penn. 442, 67 A. 835; Bancroft v. Bancroft, 4 Boyce 9, 85 A. 561; Palese v. Palese, 6 Boyce 584, 101 A. 438. In our opinion, Rule; 104 has changed this practice and requires the filing of an answer in every case where defendant desires to defend and this is so whether the defense consists of a general denial or contains matter sounding in confession and avoidance, or both.

However, in view of the fact that this is the first interpretation of Rule 104 by this court, we think that defendant should be permitted to file an answer and be let into trial subject, nevertheless, to plaintiff’s right to move for a continuance should the answer raise a defense or defenses which he may be unprepared to meet. This ruling is clearly within the court’s discretionary power. Rule 6(b).