Case Name: Waltham Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. William A. Brady and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901
Citations: 67 A.D. 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: Waltham Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. William A. Brady and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 102–104

Head Matter:
Waltham Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. William A. Brady and Others, Respondents.
An order amending a pleading should require service of d copy thereof— an order denying a resettlement is not appealable.
An order which effects a radical reformation of a pleading by striking out certain parts thereof, should provide for the service of the reformed pleading.
An order denying a motion to resettle another order is not appealable.
Appeal by the plaintiff, the W altham Manufacturing Company, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 21st day of May, 1901, granting the plaintiff’s motion to strike out certain portions of the answer as fails to provide for the service of the defendants’ amended answer upon the plaintiff, and also from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of June, 1901, denying the plaintiff’s motion to resettle the former order by inserting therein a provision for the service of the amended answer upon the plaintiff’s attorneys.
Wayland E. Benjamin, for the appellant.
A. J. Dittenhoefer, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Patterson, J.:
The plaintiff appeals from two orders, by one of which its motion to strike out certain parts of the defendants' answer was granted, but no provision is contained in that order requiring the service by the defendants of an amended answer. The second order was made upon the denial of the plaintiff's motion to resettle the first by adding thereto the requirement that an amended answer be served. The appeal from the second order must be dismissed, as such an order is not appealable.
Concerning the first order, it is quite evident that it should have contained a provision requiring the service of the amended answer. An examination of the pleading from which irrelevant and redundant matter was stricken out renders that apparent. Where a pleading is reformed as radically as was the answer in this case, by the order of the court striking out certain parts of it, the reformed or substituted pleading should be served. The answer condemned in this case set up various separate defenses, the fourth of which was preceded by the formula " realleging, reasserting and reiterating each and every allegation hereinbefore contained." That formula was stricken out, as were also certain affirmative allegations incorporated in the fourth defense. The plaintiff may desire to demur to what is left of the fourth defense, and cannot well do ,so with nothing to present to the court but the answer as originally drawn and the order of the court striking out parts thereof. The defendants should have been required to serve an amended answer, and the order granting the motion to strike out should be modified by inserting a proper provision requiring such service.
The appeal from the order to resettle order must be dismissed, with ten dollars costs.
The order striking out parts of the answer should be modified as above directed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant.
Van Brunt, P. J., O'Brien, McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ., concurred.
Appeal from order denying resettlement dismissed, with ten " dollars costs. Order striking out parts of answer modified as directed in opinion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant.