Case Name: James R. Palmer and Gertrude Knapp, Plaintiffs, v. Charles J. Day, William A. Abbott et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-08
Citations: 44 Misc. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: James R. Palmer and Gertrude Knapp, Plaintiffs, v. Charles J. Day, William A. Abbott et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
James R. Palmer and Gertrude Knapp, Plaintiffs, v. Charles J. Day, William A. Abbott et al., Defendants.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
August, 1904.)
Pleading — Striking out irrelevant matter sparingly exercised, in an equity case.
No part of a pleading will be stricken out as irrelevant unless the court can see that the moving party is aggrieved by it and that striking it out will not harm the pleader.
Semble, that in equity actions greater latitude and liberality are allowed in the preparation of pleadings than in other actions, and that the power to strike out from such pleadings matter which is claimed to be irrelevant should be used with reluctance and caution.
Action to set aside and declare invalid certain portions of a last will and testament. Motion under section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure to strike out several paragraphs of the complaint.
Jay N. Candler, for plaintiffs.
Putney, Twombly & Putney, for defendants.

Opinion:
Blanchard, J.
This is an action to set- aside and declare invalid certain portions of a last will and testament and this motion is made under section 545 of the Code of Civil Pro cedure to strike out several paragraphs of the complaint on the ground that they are irrelevant. There is little benefit-in motions of this kind and there may be much harm. Town of Essex v. New York & C. R. R. Co., 8 Hun, 361. Ho part of a pleading will be stricken out as irrelevant unless the court can see that the moving party is aggrieved by it and that striking it out will not harm the pleader. Stieffel v. Tolhurst, 32 Misc. Rep. 469; affd., 55 App. Div. 532. In Park v. Nat. Druggist Assn., 30 App. Div. 508, the court said: " The nature of the relief itself frequently requires, not only that the ultimate facts from which the right to relief arises should be stated, but that facts which are somewhat collateral should be laid before the court so that the precise relief required to give the party what he is entitled to and the way in which that relief shall be granted may be understood. For that reason in actions of that nature greater latitude and liberality are allowed in the preparation of pleading than in other actions, and the power to strike out matter which is claimed to be irrelevant should be used with reluctance and caution." As this is an action in equity I think the language quoted applies and that the motion to strike out should be denied, with ten dollars costs.
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.