Case Name: William W. Rider agt. William E. Bates and Malinda Bates, his wife, Henry Frost and Harriet M. Frost, his wife
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-10
Citations: 66 How. Pr. 129
Docket Number: 
Parties: William W. Rider agt. William E. Bates and Malinda Bates, his wife, Henry Frost and Harriet M. Frost, his wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT.
William W. Rider agt. William E. Bates and Malinda Bates, his wife, Henry Frost and Harriet M. Frost, his wife.
Answer—Amendment once, of course, and this after notice of motion by plaintiff to strilce out for irregularity in verification— Code of Civil Pro. cedure, section 542 — Costs.
In action brought against four defendants the answer was duly verified by one and was served September twelfth, and on September twenty-ninth plaintiff served notice of motion to strike out the answer of defendants as to the other three, and as to them to treat it as a nullity for the reason that they were not united in the verification. On October second, and within twenty days after the service of the first answer, the defendants served an amended and properly verified answer by all the defendants, who united in the verification thereto:
Held, that the service of the amended and properly verified answer is a perfect answer to this motion, and must defeat the same„but without costs.
Held, also, that as the plaintiff was right in serving notice of motion, because the first answer was improperly verified, no costs should be allowed to defendants.
Kingston Special Term, October, 1883.
Motion by plaintiff to strike out the answer of defendants as to the three last named defendants, and as to them to treat it as a nullity for the reason that the said last three defendants have not united in the verification thereto, and in that only one of the defendants, viz., William E. Bates, made the verification, and there is no reason assigned why the other defendants ,do not unite in the verification.
The first answer was duly verified by William E. Bates and was served September 12, 1883, and on the twenty-ninth of same month the notice for this motion was served, and on the 2d day of October, 1883, and within twenty days after the service of the first answer, the defendants served an amended and properly verified answer by all the defendants, who united in the verification thereto.
Eugene Raymond, for plaintiff and motion.
Norman W. Faulk, for defendants, opposed.

Opinion:
Westbrook, J.
— The defendants having within twenty days from the service of the first answer served an amended and properly verified answer*, which they had the right to do as of course (Code, sec. 542), this motion must be denied, but without costs ( Welch agt. Preston, 58 Heno., 52, and many other cases). As, however, the plaintiff was right in serving notice of motion, because the first answer was improperly verified, no costs of motion are given the defendants.
Motion denied, and no costs of this motion to either party.