From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox Film Corporation v. Gross

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Mar 4, 1932
56 F.2d 457 (W.D.N.Y. 1932)

Opinion

No. 401.

March 4, 1932.

Herbert T. Silverberg, of Buffalo, N.Y., for plaintiff.

Harry E. Harding, of Buffalo, N.Y., for defendants.


In Equity. Suit by the Fox Film Corporation against John W. Gross and another. On motion to strike out certain portions of answer.

Order requiring defendants to serve answer conforming to opinion.


This is a motion to strike out certain portions of the answer. Equity Rule 30 (28 USCA § 723), among other things, provides that the defendant in his answer shall "set out in short and simple terms his defense to each claim asserted in the bill, omitting mere statements of evidence and avoiding general denials, but specifically admitting, denying or explaining the facts upon which the plaintiff relies, unless he is without knowledge, in which event he shall so state, and this shall be treated as a denial."

Paragraph third of the answer is a general denial. Under rule 30 this clearly is insufficient. Vide Hughes, Federal Practice, § 4376 and cases cited; In re Southern Fruit Produce Co. (D.C.) 14 F.2d 676; Hass v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 17 F.2d 894.

The second paragraph of the answer denies certain allegations in the complaint "upon the ground that defendants have not sufficient information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations, therefore deny the same and each and every allegation therein contained."

Certain of the paragraphs in the complaint purporting to be denied in the second paragraph of the answer relate to facts clearly within the knowledge of the defendants. This applies to paragraphs No. 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 27, 33, and 39. As to these the answer is insufficient, and the defendants should be required to specifically admit, deny, or explain these particular paragraphs. Rule 30; Duggan v. Lubbin, 219 App. Div. 433, 220 N YS. 684; Rochkind v. Perlman, 123 App. Div. 809, 108 N.Y.S. 224, 1151; Kirschbaum et al. v. Eschmann, 205 N.Y. 127, 98 N.E. 328.

An order may be prepared striking out the defendants' answer unless within twenty days from the date of the service of such order defendants serve an answer conforming to the directions herein, and the defendants' time in which to serve such answer is hereby extended such period of twenty days.


Summaries of

Fox Film Corporation v. Gross

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Mar 4, 1932
56 F.2d 457 (W.D.N.Y. 1932)
Case details for

Fox Film Corporation v. Gross

Case Details

Full title:FOX FILM CORPORATION v. GROSS et al

Court:United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Mar 4, 1932

Citations

56 F.2d 457 (W.D.N.Y. 1932)

Citing Cases

Stewart v. American Life Ins. Co.

Nor did defendants challenge the allegations of paragraph eight of the bills by any proper pleading, since…