Case Name: ECKERT v. GALLIEN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-05-12
Citations: 58 N.Y.S. 85
Docket Number: 
Parties: ECKERT v. GALLIEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 58
Pages: 85–88

Head Matter:
(40 App. Div. 525.)
ECKERT v. GALLIEN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 12, 1899.)
Pleading—Demurrer to Counterclaim—Specifying Objection—Sufficiency.
Code Civ. Proc. § 501, provides what causes of action may be set up as a counterclaim. Section 495 specifies the objections to a counterclaim that may be taken by demurrer, among which, as provided in subdivision' .4, is one that the counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501. Section 496 provides that a demurrer, under section 495, must distinctly specify the objections to the counterclaim, the mode being the same as where a demurrer is taken to a complaint. Section 490 provides ■ that objections to a complaint taken under certain subdivisions of section 488 may be stated in the language of the subdivision, and an objection taken under the other subdivisions must specify the defect. Held, that a demurrer to a counterclaim, on the ground that it was not of the character specified in section 501, was sufficient.
O’Brien, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by William H. Eckert against Brace M. Gallien. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to a counterclaim (53 N. Y. Supp. 879) plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, J J.
Henry B. Ketcham, for appellant.
Daniel E. Lynch, for respondent.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
It was conceded in the court below that the action is in tort. It was so found by the court, and that conclusion is not challenged upon this appeal. The counterclaim demurred to alleges, as a counterclaim, a cause of action on contract not arising out of the transaction alleged in the complaint, and thus, within section 501- of the Code, they are not properly pleaded as counterclaims to the cause of action set up in the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, however, upon the ground that it is a nullity, in that it is stated in the language of subdivision 4 of section 495 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and does not distinctly specify the objections to the counterclaims, and point out specifically the particular defect relied upon, as required by sections 490 and 496 of the Code. The plaintiff demurs to the counterclaim on the ground "that said counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
By section 501 of the Code it is provided that a counterclaim "must be one of the following causes of action against the plaintiff: (1) A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, or connected with the subject of the action. (2) In an action on contract, any other cause of action on contract existing at the commencement of the action." A cause of action that can thus be set up as a counterclaim in an action in tort must be a cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint, or connected with the subject of the action. By section 496 of the Code, it is provided that "a demurrer taken under the last section [section 495] must distinctly specify the objections to the counterclaim; otherwise it may be disregarded. The mode of specifying the objections is the same as where a demurrer is taken to a complaint." The mode of specifying .the objections, where a demurrer is taken to the complaint, is specified in section 490 of the Code, which provides that "an objection, taken under subdivisions first, second, fourth or eighth of section four hundred and eighty-eight of this act, may be stated in the language of the subdivision; an objection, taken under either of the other subdivisions, must point out specifically the particular defect relied upon." The various objections that may be taken by demurrer to a counterclaim are specified in section 495. One objection that may be taken is that specified in subdivision 4 of that section, viz.: "That the counterclaim is not of the character specified in section five hundred and one of this act;" and it seems to me, when that objection is thus taken, the pleader distinctly specifies the objection to the counterclaim. To make this objection available, a plaintiff must state in the demurrer that the cause of action set up as a counterclaim is not within either of the subdivisions of section 501 of the Code, and it does not make the objection more specific to say that the cause of action set up as a counterclaim does not arise out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, or connected with the subject of the action; and that, the action not being an action on contract, a cause of action on contract existing at the commencement of the action, not arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint, cannot be set up as a counterclaim. He does say just that, when he alleges in his demurrer as an objection to the counterclaim that it is not of the character specified in section 501. Nothing that . the plaintiff could say would make the objection more specific. The specific objection to this counterclaim is that it is not one specified in section 501 of the Code, and this objection is specifically taken by the plaintiff by this demurrer. Certainly, repeating the langua-ge of section 501 of the Code would not more distinctly specify the objection than stating that the counterclaim was not of the character specified in that section.
None of the cases relied on by the court below or by the respondent upon this appeal are in point. The observation of this court in Weeks v. O'Brien, 25 App. Div. 208, 49 N. Y. Supp. 344, did not decide this question, or state that a demurrer to a counterclaim, upon the ground that it was not of a character specified in section 501' of the Code, was not sufficient, without setting forth the particular nature of the cause of action and the counterclaim sought to be pleaded.
We think, therefore, that an objection that a counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure distinctly specifies the objection, within the meaning of section 496 of the Code, and it follows that the judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the defendant to amend within 20 days, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below. All concur, except O'BBIEN, J., dissenting.