The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-03
Supreme Coart-Spccial Term.
Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt.

IMPORTANT OPINION ON PLEADINGS.
NAY 2.-Corneiius G. Vanderbilt the Accessory
Transit Com pony.--The defendants, it is supposed,
by slip Of the pleader, have made implied
admission in their answer involving consequences
the amount of seventy thousand dollars and upwards
contrary 1t is alleged TO their intention and contrary to
the truth OF the and they seek by amendment
on such terms may be just to restore themselves,
far may be- to their original position. The contract
among other things for the sale and delivery to
the defendants OF large quantity of rcsiduary coal
derstood to be tho places deposit on the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts Of the Isthmus where the steamships
received their supplies OF how many tons did this resi-
dium consist--or rather with how many tons Abe
company chargable, is the main point in dispute The
steamships sold to the at fixed price of
GOO the coal at cost to be paid for out of the
FIRST earnings of the ships the plaintiff continuing in his
character of agent instead OF principal to conduct
the business OF the line 1t is alleged for him in his
ecmplantfor be himself absent In Europe when it
fled-that the Goals, &c, " transferred and
delivered to the Company and that their value amounted
at $780, 706 $50 and that $10,040 SO I" still remains
due and unpaid" The defendants in their answer,
than precision saver that the entire allegation in tho
complaint to the contract between them and the plain
t excepting so far the relates to the purchase
and sale Of vessels and the purchase and Of the
coal coal huks and fixtures is totally and without quail
caton untrue Ills true they continue defendants
were to for the coal huks &c. out Of the first
ngs Of the ships but plaintiff was not to retain that
amount and defendants have paid the same, and more
than the same to said PLAINTIFF And they add for the
coal hulks fixtures, &C. the defendants nothing"
The question, then is DO these expressions, taken to-
gether contain imply denial that the coal account
mad been quidated between the parties NJ the amount
specified in the complaint, rather do they, by the
omission Of direct specific response to the averment
in that particular necessarily admit its truth2 BY the
16Sth section OF the code 1t ia declared that every
material allegation of the complaint not controyered by
the answer prescribed in section 49, shall for the
purposes Of the action be taken true.n Now, the
I4gth section thus referred to defining rule does
not require specific but general specific denial of
each material allegation Of the complaint conrover;ed by
the defendant" Can it then, be said-trying the
by this rule-that IL does not in Sort contro
vert the allegation Of account taedS 1t seems to
especially by court whose express duty IL made in the
Interpretation Of peadings TO apply to them the most
liberal principles OF construction with view, not to the
overthrow but to the establishment Of Substantial JUS
tcs between the parties" That the is deficient
in precision all and the defendants counsel
does not deny We may allow it to be doubtful in
some respects of the argument whether it does
not contain general response to the important
averment in question That the averment, however was
not intended to be admitted positively sworn and that
1t is not fact this motion at least is just inference
from the aiidavs. Can the Court then with pro-
prety let the pleadngs remain in their present slater
win conduce to substantial justice to superadd TO the
original controversy another still distressingy
doubtful and the legal effect Of the professional words
in which that controversy 10 cxpresseds When says
the Code the allegations OF pleading whether it be
complaint, ''are indefinite uncertain
that the precise nature Of the charge defence
il not apparent, the Court may with or without
the motion Of counsel in its discretion require the
pleading TO be made definite and certain by amend.
ment II seems to this Is precisely such The
plaintiff IL is true insists that the time for amendment
has gone By and that relying the supposed admission
Two oil witnesses depart STATE
without examination In furtheranoe of justice, the
law provides that amendments may be made at time
after judgment, by correcting mistakes" in any
particular by inserting other allegations material to
he " Terms IL is true, may be imposed on the
moving party and in where they proper, 1t
is the duty well the right OF the court to impose
them But with this qualification the doctrine Of amend
ment is TO be literally applied The whole spirit OF the
codcand in that respect Is but emanation Of the
common OF modern times-demands such
Of procedure And the constitution Of the State
may add which, in effect requires little more OF Prac-
ttoner than that he should be twenty years OF age
greatly increases the necessity. Under this bcralor
perhaps may be called OF legal
education, occasions for amendment must frequent
ly occur, and they must be met of course, both
by the Legislature and the Judiciary, In the same
temper as that which actuatsd the trainers OF the
instrument out Of which, In some degree, they may
be said TO originate. Technical exactness-once the
beau ideal Of the legal peadercan longer be ex-
pectci and ought longer to be required Tidd asd
Gritty are Obsolete and the courts must be blind to de
cts and indugent 70 amendments Such, in my judg
snt Is the rule which the temper Of the times and OF
the country-and wisely, too, believe-prescrbes in
these cases The motion therefore, OF the defendants
must be granted, but with this condition, that the
amended shall be forthwith served accompanied
by the ment OF all costs including reasonable coun-
sci fees, TO be certified by of the Judges OF the
Court and with written stipulation that the plaintiff
the trial may be witness In his behalf without
objection to competency, and subject to the usual
rrgos .gxaf min