Case Name: McROY CLAY WORKS v. NAUGHTON et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-06-19
Citations: 82 N.Y.S. 979
Docket Number: 
Parties: McROY CLAY WORKS v. NAUGHTON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 82
Pages: 979–982

Head Matter:
McROY CLAY WORKS v. NAUGHTON et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 19, 1903.)
1. Pleading—Federal Question—Averment in Petition—Practice.
Where a plaintiff seeks to avoid the application of an act of the state-Legislature which will defeat his claim, on the ground that it is in violation of the United States Constitution, an allegation in the complaint that the act is unconstitutional properly presents the federal question involved, and cannot be stricken out as irrelevant.
Hatch and Patterson, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by McRoy Clay Works against Bernard Naughton and others. From an order granting defendants’ motion to strike out certain portions of the amended complaint as "redundant and evidentiary, plaintiff appeals.
Modified.
Argued before HATCH, PATTERSON. O’BRIEN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
Joseph M. Gazzam, Jr., for appellant.
Emmett J. Murphy, for respondents.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
Assuming that it would not be necessary that it should appear by the pleadings that a federal question is presented in order to have that question considered by the federal courts, it is not disputed but that it must appear by the record that the question was presented to the court when the case was tried; and it seems to us that in such a case the proper method is to present the question by a proper allegation in the pleadings. That course has been ap proved by the Supreme Court of the United States. If the defendant relied upon the unconstitutionality of an act upon which the plaintiff's claim was based, it certainly would not be improper to allege in the answer that the act was unconstitutional; and, where a plaintiff seeks to avoid the application of an act of the state Legislature which would defeat his claim upon the ground that it is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, it seems to me to be the better practice to allege in the complaint that such act was unconstitutional. No reason is given why such a practice ought not to be encouraged. On the contrary, it fairly presents in a concise and proper way the federal question that is involved and of which a determination is sought. Certainly, such an allegation is not irrelevant or redundant, and, as the plaintiff cannot raise the question by reply, he should be allowed to set it up in the complaint. For that reason the order appealed from should be modified so as to restore paragraphs 16 and 17 of the complaint, which were stricken out, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to abide the final event.
O'BRIEN and LAUGHLIN, JJ" concur.