Case Name: SAVAGE et al. v. CITY OF BUFFALO
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-03-27
Citations: 63 N.Y.S. 941
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAVAGE et al. v. CITY OF BUFFALO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 63
Pages: 941–947

Head Matter:
SAVAGE et al. v. CITY OF BUFFALO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 27, 1900.)
1. Pleading — Demurrer to Answer — Complaint.
On demurrer to an answer for insufficiency, defendant may attack the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, since, if the complaint is bad, the answer will not be considered.
2. Trover and Conversion — Pleading.
A complaint alleging that plaintiffs entered into a written contract to construct a school building for defendant according to plans and specifications furnished by it, forming a part of the agreement, and that under the same, and the well-known usage of the trade, all the materials on the lot on which the building was to be erected, other than earth needed for grading, and not reserved by the owner, belonged to plaintiffs; that among such materials was stone flagging, which had not been reserved,, and which became plaintiffs’ property; and that plaintiffs then became and have ever since been the owners and entitled .to the immediate possession thereof, — sufficiently alleges plaintiffs’ title to, and right of possession of, such flagging, in an action to recover damages for its conversion.
3. Same — Counterclaim.
Code Civ. Proc. § 501, subd. 1, permits a defendant to set up as a counterclaim a cause of action tending to diminish or defeat plaintiff's recovery, arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of plaintiff's claim, or connected with the subject of the action. Held) that, where a contractor sued for the conversion of certain material under a building contract, defendant was entitled .to set up as a counterclaim a cause of action arising out of the contract, since it arose out of the same transaction.
McLennan and Spring, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Erie county.
Action by William L. Savage and another against the city of Buffalo. From a judgment in favor of defendant, overruling a demurrer to the second and third defenses of defendant’s answer, they appeal.
Modified.
Argued before ADAMS, P. J., and McLENNAN, SPRING, WILLIAMS, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
W. L. Jones, for appellants.
W. S. Jackson, for respondent.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, J.
The action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of a quantity of stone flagging.
1. The defendant claims that the plaintiffs should not be heard to allege that the answer is defective, because the complaint itself does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This attack upon the complaint may be made, under the well-settled rule that a bad answer is good enough for a bad complaint, and, if the complaint is bad, the answer will not be disturbed. Baxter v. McDonnell, 154 N. Y. 432-436, 48 N. E. 816, and cases there referred to. We must therefore consider the question whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for conversion. The specific objection made is that the complaint fails to allege ownership and right to the possession of the property in the plaintiffs. The complaint, among other things, alleges that the parties entered into a contract, in writing, that the plaintiffs should construct a school building for the defendant according to plans and specifications furnished by. the defendant; that, according to the plans and specifications, the old building and fence upon the lot should be removed by the plaintiffs at their own expense, and they should have the material therein, and the privilege to use such of the old brick as the architects deemed suitable, and all other such old material on the lot the plaintiffs should take therefrom, leaving so much earth as might, in the judgment of the superintendent of buildings, be needed for grading around the building, but all other earth and refuse of every kind the plaintiffs should take entirely from the lot, and that the specifications formed a part of the contract; that by said plans, specifications, and contract, and the well-known usage of trade, all the materials on said lot, other than earth needed for such grading, and not reserved by the owner, belonged to the plaintiffs; that of such other material was about 4,350 square feet of stone flagging, of the value of 15 cents per square foot, which said stone was not reserved by the defendant, and which thereby became the property of the plaintiffs, as owners thereof, and the plaintiffs then became and ever since have been the owners and entitled to the immediate possession thereof. A mere reading of these allegations shows that ownership and right to possession in the plaintiffs were fully and sufficiently alleged. No argument on the subject is necessary. Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y. 425; Sage v. Culver, 147 N. Y. 241, 41 N. E. 513; Spies v. Michelsen, 2 App. Div. 22-6, 37 N. Y. Supp. 720.
2. The counterclaim constituting the defendant's second defense-is well pleaded; for, although the complaint alleges a cause of action in tort, and the counterclaim is upon contract, yet the counterclaim arose out of the same transaction or contract as did the alleged tort,, and therefore it was properly alleged as a defense, under subdivision-1 of section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Carpenter v. Insurance Co., 93 N. Y. 552. The demurrer to this second defense was-therefore properly overruled.
3. The demurrer to the third defense was properly taken, for the reason stated in the opinion of McLennan, J., in Savage v. City of Buffalo (recently decided by this court) 63 N. Y. Supp. 477.
It follows, therefore, that the interlocutory judgment, so far as-it overruled the demurrer to the second defense, should be affirmed, and, so far as it overruled the demurrer to the third defense, should be reversed, and the demurrer sustained, with the usual leave to-amend, without costs of this appeal to either party.