Blanton v. Chalmers
| Decision Date | 06 February 1908 |
| Docket Number | 28,828. |
| Citation | 158 F. 907 |
| Parties | BLANTON v. CHALMERS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Follansbee McConnell & Follansbee, for complainant.
George M. Eckels, for defendant.
This cause is now before the court on exception to the answer for impertinence. Inasmuch as the bill and answer are in the files, it was not proper practice for complainant to restate the same, and then by adding, 'In all which particulars the plaintiff excepts to said answer of said defendant William J. Chalmers, as impertinent, and he insists that said allegation ought to be expunged from said answer,' leaving the court the task of ascertaining just what is claimed by him. There are a number of matters set up by way of answer, and proper practice would require that the particular matters excepted to be named in the exceptions. Equity Rules 27, 61. The briefs, however, indicate that the exception is filed only to the defendant's version of the contract in suit, whether new, or in legal effect the same as that set up in the bill, and, for the purposes of this hearing, the matter debated in the briefs may be accepted as a designation of the particular part of the answer excepted to, although 'exceptions to an answer must be definite and exact, and cannot be founded on general objections to an answer, part of which is clearly good. ' Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cokefair, 41 N.J.Eq. 142, 3 A. 686; Arnold v. Slaughter, 36 W.Va. 589, 15 S.E. 250. The matter in suit, for the purposes of this hearing, may be stated as follows, viz.: The complainant desired a certain credit from Allis Chalmers & Co. This they refused to allow him without some sort of security. In consideration that defendant guarantee his account, complainant conveyed certain shares of stock made out in defendant's name to the Allis Chalmers & Co. under an agreement with defendant that if he was compelled to pay the account, the stock was to be his absolute property. Complainant failed to pay, and Chalmers assumed the debt and took the stock.
Impertinence consists in the introduction of any matters into a bill answer, or other pleading in a suit, which are not properly before the court for decision at any particular stage of the suit. Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 506, Fed. Cas. No 17,951; Chapman v. School Dist., Deady, 108, Fed. Cas. No. 2,607; Woods v. Morrell, 1 Johns.Ch. (N.Y.) 103. The briefs in this cause are...
To continue reading
Request your trial