58 N.Y.S. 85 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1899
Lead Opinion
It was conceded in the court below that the action is in tort. It was so found by the court, and that conclusion is not challenged upon this appeal. The counterclaim demurred to alleges as a counterclaim a: cause of action on 'contract not arising out of the transaction alleged in the complaint, and thus, within section 501 of the Code, it is not properly pleaded as a counterclaim to the cause of action set up in the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, however, upon the ground that it is a nullity in that it is stated in the language of subdivision 4 of section 495 of the Code of Civil Procedure and does not distinctly specify the objections to-the counterclaims and point out specifically the particular defect relied upon, as required by sections 490 and 496 of the Code. The plaintiff demurs to the counterclaim on the ground “ that said counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” By section 501 of the Code it is provided that a counterclaim “ must be one of the following causes of action against the plaintiff * * * :
“ 1. A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim or connected with the subject of the action.
“ 2. In an action on contract, any other cause of action on contract, existing at the commencement of the action.”
A cause of action that can thus be set up as a counterclaim in an action in tort must be a cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint or connected with the subject of the action. By section 496 of the Code it is provided that “ a demurrer taken under the last section (§ 495) must distinctly specify the objections to the counterclaim; otherwise it may be disregarded. The mode of specifying the objections is the same as
The various objections that may be taken by demurrer to a counterclaim are specified in section 495. One objection that may be taken is that specified in subdivision 4 of that section, viz., “ That the counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of this act,” and, it seems to'me, when, that objection is thus, taken, the pleader distinctly specifies the objection to the counterclaim. To make this objection available, a plaintift" must state-in the demurrer that the cause of action set up as a counterclaim is not within either of the subdivisions of section 501 of the Code, and it does not make the objection more specific to say that the cause of action set up as a counterclaim does not arise out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, or connected with the subject of the action;, and that the action not being an action on contract, a cause of action, on contract existing at the commencement of the action not arising-out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint, cannot he set up as a counterclaim. He does say just that, when he alleges, in his demurrer as an objection to the counterclaim, that it is not of the character specified in section 501. Nothing that the plaintiff could say would -make the objection more specific. The specific, objection to this counterclaim is that it is not one of the character-specified in section 501 of the Code, and this objection is specifically taken by the plaintiff by this demurrer. Certainly, repeating the-language of section 501 of the Code would not more distinctly specify the objection than stating that the counterclaim was not of the character specified in that section.
None of the cases relied on by the court below, or by the respondent upon this appeal, are in point. The observation of this court, in Weeks v. O'Brien (25 App. Div. 208), did not decide this question, or state that a demurrer to a counterclaim, upon the ground
We think,, therefore, that an objection that a counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure distinctly specifies the objection within the meaning of section 496 of the Code; and it follows that the judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the defendant to amend within twenty days, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred; O’Brien, J., dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
Under section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a counterclaim must be: (1) A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, or connected with the subject of the action, (2) In an action on contract, any other cause of action on contract, existing at the commencement of the action.
The complaint here is in tort, and as it appears that the counterclaims sought to be interposed do not arise out of the transaction set forth in the complaint, and are not connected with the subject of the action, they aré not proper counterclaims. The issue presented, however, relates to the form of the demurrer to each of the three counterclaims, the pleader using the exact language of subdivision 4, section 495 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the counterclaims are “ not of the character specified in section 501 ” of the Code. By section 496, it is provided that “ A demurrer taken under the last section must distinctly specify the objections to the counterclaim; otherwise it may be disregarded. The mode of specifying the objections is the same as where a demurrer is taken to a complaint.” The mode of specifying an objection where a demurrer is taken to a complaint, is governed by section 490 of the Code, which provides that the objection must be distinctly stated, except in certain instances specified, when it may be stated in the language of the subdivision. It is thus pointed out that the objection must be specifically stated, except in cases where it is directly provided that
If there were but one kind of counterclaim allowed under section 501 of the Code, then the use of the exact language of subdivision 4 of section 495 would seemingly be sufficient; but as there are enumerated in section 501 at least two different and distinct causes of action which may be availed of as counterclaims by a defendant, it is not a distinct specification of the objection to the counterclaim to employ merely the language of subdivision 4 of section 495, “ that . the counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501.”
This question is not a new one and the proper practice has been -discussed in the case of Weeks v. O'Brien (20 Misc. Rep. 48) as follows: “ It is to be noted that there are two kinds of causes of .action which may be set up as a counterclaim against the plaintiff. It seems to me that a demurrer which does not specify on which of the grounds mentioned in section 501 it relies is within the prohibition of section 496 and should be disregarded. The object of a demurrer is to specify the reason why the pleading to which the .demurrer is taken is not a good pleading, and a demurrer which simply says that the counterclaims are not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code does not specify the defects in the counterclaim.”
Although this case was overruled on another ground, as may be seen by reference to the opinion on reversal in 25 Appellate Division, 208, we find in the statement of the learned judge writing the opinion of this court what may be regarded as a dictum in favor of the view that the objection should be expressed otherwise than in the language of subdivision 4 of section 495, as follows: “ It may be that ' this point might have been raised by a demurrer upon the ground that the counterclaims were not of the character specified in section 501 of the Code, the particular nature of the variance Toeing set forth”
That the general language of subdivision 4 of section 495 is not .sufficient in objecting to counterclaims is further shown by the fact
Our attention has been called to the Special Term case of Grange v. Gilbert (10 Civ. Proc. Rep. 98) where, without any discussion of the question, a contrary rule to the one adopted in Weeks v. O'Brien (supra) was laid down. We think that the learned judge below was right in following the more recent case, holding that the. demurrer was bad in form and should be overruled.
The judgment should be accordingly affirmed, with costs.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the defendant to amend within twenty days upon payment of costs in this c.ourt and in the court below.
