the original, or is otherwise frivolous, it may be stricken out on motion. The adverse party, in such a case, will not be put to his demurrer or other regular mode of attack.1 N. 377, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,171; Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How. (U. S.) 505. See also Oregonian R. Co. v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 277. But by statute in some states matter in abatement and to the merits may be contained in the same answer. Jones v. Rowley, 73 Fed. Rep. 286; State v. Jennings, 56 Wis. 113, in which case it was held that a proceeding to obtain a mandamus is a civil action and the defense of another action pending may be taken by answer, as in other civil actions, where such fact is not apparent upon the face of the relation. See generally article ABATEMENT IN PLEADING, vol. I, p. 32. In Oregonian R. Co. v. Oregon R., etc., Co., Io Sawy. (U. S.) 464, reversed on other grounds 130 U. S. 1, it was said that matter in abatement pleaded with matter in bar should rather be assailed as redundant or irrelevant matter contained in a pleading than as a frivolous defense. Sham and Frivolous Pleas Puis Darrein Continuance. Pool 7. Hill, 44 Miss. 306; Martin v. Wyvill, I Stra. 492; Dinet v. Pfirshing, 86 Ill. 83. Hickey v. Burt, 7 Taunt. 49, 2 E. C. L. 48; Morel v. Garelly, (C. Pl. Gen. T.) 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 269. The filing of such a plea will not operate as a waiver of errors or prior pleadings, as is usually the case, where it is afterwards stricken from the record. Dinet v. Pfirshing, 86 III. 83. Frivolous Replications, Rejoinders, and Surrejoinders. Atty.-Gen. v. Parsell, 99 Mich. 381; Gibbons v. Ogden, 8 N. J. L. 288; Howe v. Lawrence, 22 N. J. L. 99; Herr v. Bamberg, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 128; Sankey v. Noyes, I Nev. 68; Providence v. Adams, II R. I. 190; Huff. man v. Callison, 6 W. Va. 301. See also Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 332, citing Hunter v. Wilkinson, 44 Miss. 721. Compare contra as to replications Martin v. Wilson, (Ct. App.) 3 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 195. 1. Arkansas. McWhorter v. Andrews, 53 Ark. 307; Goodwin v. Rob. inson, 30 Ark. 535; Hirsch v. Hirsch, 21 Ark. 342; Sanger v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 411. Colorado. - Hurd v. Smith, 5 Colo. 233; Heaton v. Myers, 4 Colo. 59; Klippel v. Oppenstein, 8 Colo. App. 187; Rittmaster v. Richner, (Colo. App. 1900) 60 Pac. Rep. 189. Iowa. Theis 2. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 107 Iowa 522; Koboliska v. Swehla, 107 Iowa 124; Hoyt v. Beach, 104 Iowa 257; Van Werden v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc.. 99 Iowa 621; Wing v. District Tp., 82 Iowa 632; Waukon v. Strouse, 74 Iowa 547; Epley z. Ely, 68 Iowa 70; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Findley, 59 Iowa 591; Robinson v. Erickson, 25 Iowa 85; Mayer v. Woodbury, 14 Iowa 57; Harvey v. Spaulding, 7 Iowa 424. Nebraska. Wheeler v. Barker, 51 Neb. 846. New Jersey. Coxe v. Higbee, II N. J. L. 395; Hogencamp v. Ackerman, 24 N. J. L. 133. New York. Peaslee v. Peaslee, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Gen. T.) 2 Misc. (N. Y.) 573; Wehle v. Koch, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 429; Daly v. Byrne, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Spec. T.) 1 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 150; Snyder v. White, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 321. Oregon. gon 81. Washington. 9 Wash. 325. Farris v. Hayes, 9 Ore Noyes v. Loughead, United States. Parker v. Lewis, Hempst. (U. S.) 72. Canada. - Richardson v. Vaughan, 24 N. Bruns. 75; Stephenson v. Colford, 9 Nova Scotia 50; Nova Scotia Bank v. Chipman, 7 Nova Scotia 521; Burns v. Rickards, 7 Nova Scotia 509; Wallace v. McSweeny, L. R. 2 P. C. 188, note i. In Admiralty. An amended libel filed under rule 131 in admiralty in the Circuit Circuit for the southern district of New York may be stricken out on motion where the issues raised are frivolous in character. The Thomas Melville, 34 Fed. Rep. 350. The Fact that the Original Pleading Has Been Withdrawn will not preveni the court from taking judicial notice of the facts set forth therein, in passing upon such an application. Hoyt v. Beach, 104 Iowa 257. Query whether the operation of this rule would be affected by a statement in the amended pleading that the original pleading is d. NOTICE OR AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE. A notice or brief statement of defense which raises only frivolous issues is properly stricken out on motion. Where an affidavit of defense is thus deficient, judgment may be entered as for want of an affidavit." e. CODE REPLIES. Where the code provisions relating to answers make a reply to certain defenses unnecessary, a reply filed to such defenses is properly stricken out as frivolous and irrelevant.3 2. Under Statutory Provisionsa. IN GENERAL. The usual code provisions include only sham, frivolous, or irrelevant answers, defenses, and replies; but the statutes of some states apply to pleadings generally.* withdrawn. Hoyt v. Beach, 104 Iowa 257. Judgment on Striking Out Amended Pleading. Where the original pleading has not been withdrawn or stricken out, it stands as if no amended pleading had been filed, and if it raises any issues they must be tried or otherwise passed upon, and final judgment cannot be rendered until they have been adjudicated. Robinson v. Erickson, 25 Iowa 85; Hill v. Jamieson, 16 Ind. 125; Herrod v. Smith, 12 Ind. App. 21. 1. Whitehall v. Smith, 24 Ill. 179; Coxe v. Higbee, 11 N. J. L. 395; Miller v. Halsey, 14 N. J. L. 48; Voorhees v. Barr, 59 N. J. L. 123; Lowry v. Hall, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 663. See in general article NOTICE OR BRIEF STATEMENT OF DEFENSE, vol. 14, p. 1082. 2. Taylor v. Nyce, 3 W. N. C. (Pa.) 433; Terry v. Wenderoth, 29 W. N. C. (Pa.) 517. See generally on such pleadings article AFFIDAVITS OF MER ITS OR DEFENSE, vol. 1, p. 338. 3. Arkansas. · Lusk v. Perkins, 48 Ark. 238; Cannon v. Davies, 33 Ark. 56; Abbott v. Rowan, 33 Ark. 593. Iowa. Bayliss v. Murray, 69 Iowa 290; Hunt v. Johnston, 105 Iowa 311. See also Meadows v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 62 Iowa 387. Missouri. Farrell v. Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co., 66 Mo. App. 153. New York. Avery v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., (Buffalo Super. Ct. Gen. T.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 547, affirmed without opinion 117 N. Y. 660; Sterling v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct. Gen. T.) 6 N. Y. St. Rep. 96; Dillon v. Sixth Ave R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 21; Ward v. Comegys, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 2 How. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 428; Devlin v. Bevins, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 290; Gilbert v. Cram, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 455; Herr v. Bamberg, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 128. Washington. - Puget Sound Iron Co. v. Worthington, 2 Wash. Ter. 472. Reply to Counterclaim. — A reply to matter set up in an answer as a counterclaim is authorized by the code and cannot be stricken out as frivolous. Wood v. New York, (Supm. Ct.) 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 467, 4 Abb. Pr N. S. (N. Y.) 152. And if it is in any way doubtful whether matter contained in an answer is alleged as a counterclaim or merely as a defense, in which latter case no reply is proper, if a reply is filed it should not be stricken out as frivolous. Stegman v. Hollingsworth, (Supm. Ct. Gen. T.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 820; Stewart . Travis, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 148. 4. See the provisions of various jurisdictions cited supra, p. 6, et seq. Bill of Particulars. A bill of particulars is not a pleading which can be stricken out because so framed as to prejudice, embarrass, or delay a fair trial of the action, under Gen. Stat. New Jersey, p. 2555, § 132. Voorhees v. Barr, 59 N. J. L. 123. But if a party has been asked and required to give particulars of his claim, and merely repeats the general statement of it, or alleges that he is not in a position to give particulars. without more, this may be considered as evidence tending to show that the cause of action is frivolous, vexatious, and oppressive. Davey v. Bentinck, (1893) 1 Q. B. 185. Replies. The code provision gives the same remedy against a frivolous reply as formerly existed in the case of a frivolous plea. Rae v. Washington Mut. Ins. Co., (Supm. Ct.) 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 21. b. DEMURRERS.-Statutes which provide only for the summary disposition of answers or defenses that are sham, frivolous, or irrelevant do not include demurrers,1 c. COUNTERCLAIMS. It has been held in some jurisdictions that a counterclaim is not an answer or defense within the statutory provisions against sham, frivolous, or irrelevant answers or defenses, but rather is an affirmation of a cause of action against the plaintiff, in the nature of a cross-action, upon which the defendant may have affirmative judgment, and can be assailed before trial only by demurrer." But there are cases in other states In a late case in New York it was held that a motion for judgment on a frivolous reply is confined to cases in which the answer sets up a counterclaim and prays for affirmative relief. The court said: "The cases mentioned in the code are primarily only those where, if the pleading is frivolous, affirmative relief can be awarded to the person upon whom the pleading is served because it is asked in his pleading to which the frivolous one has been interposed, and he would have been entitled to it but for the frivolous pleading. For that reason, if section 537 shall be held to apply only to cases in which the reply is required to be served because the answer sets up a counterclaim, its provisions are consistent in permitting the award of judgment to the person against whom the frivolous reply has been served; because when the reply is out of the way, the facts set up in the answer as a counterclaim are admitted, and therefore nothing stands between the claim of the defendant and his right to have it adjudged to him." Henriques v. Trowbridge, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 18, citing Henriques v. Garson, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 38. Compare Gibbons 7. Ogden, 8 N. J. L. 288, where the court said, after setting aside a replication: "If, then, the facts set forth in the plea, standing uncontroverted as to their truth, as they do for want of a replication, are sufficient in law to bar the plaintiff's action, the defendant must have judgment." See also infra, IV. 7. a. the paragraph headed Application Compared with Demurrer. Query whether, although the statute applies to pleadings generally, a replication may be set aside as false, frivolous, and vexatious. O'Connell v. Scallion, 24 Nova Scotia 345. wherein it was said, per Graham, E. J.: "I do not express any opinion 20 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. -4 as to whether or not that provision applies to replies. In former revisions it in express terms applied only to pleas, and was passed by the legislature obviously to prevent delays caused by defendants putting in false defenses, to prevent judgment by default, and compelling the plaintiff to wait until a trial could be had." 1. Davis v. Honey Lake Water Co., 98 Cal. 415; Larco v. Casaneuava, 30 Cal. 561, Sawyer, J., dubitante; Kain v. Dickel, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Spec. T.) 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 208. 2. Minnesota. Walker v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 147, cited in Lace v. Fixen, 39 Minn. 46; Mississippi, etc., Boom Co. 2. Prince, 34 Minn. 71; Warner v. Foote, 40 Minn. 176. New York. Fettretch v. McKay, 47 N. Y. 426, 11 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 453: Saratoga First Nat. Bank v. Slattery, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 421; Collins v. Suau, 7 Robt. (N. Y.) 94; Baum's Castorine Co. v. Thomas, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 1; Albany County Bank v. Rider, 74 Hun (N. Y.) 349; Cooper v. Howe, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 502; Briggs v. Freedman, (Supm. Ct. Gen. T.) 9 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 73; Whitehall Lumber Co. v. Edmans, (Supm. Ct. Gen. T.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 721; Van Valen v. Lapham, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Spec. T.) 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 240; Remsen v. Hoyt, 1 N. Y. Law Rec. 45. See also Ayres v. O'Farrell, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 143; Hammond v. Terry, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 186; Plant v. Schuyler, 7 Robt. (N. Y.) 271, 4 Abb. Pr. Ñ. S. (N. Y.) 146. Compare contra, Venable v. Harlin, (C. Pl. Spec. T.) 1 Civ. Pro. (N. Y.) 215; Drake v. Cockroft, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 34, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 203, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 377; Mott v. Burnett, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y) 50; Arrangoiz v. Frazer, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 244. 49 North Dakota. - Decorah First Nat. Bank v. Laughlin, 4 N. Dak. 391; Noble Tp. v. Aasen, 8 N. Dak. 77. Volume XX. which hold the contrary.1 3. Pleadings Filed for Delay. A pleading manifestly filed for delay cannot be summarily disposed of on that ground alone, but to authorize such course it must also be either sham or frivolous. The court has power, however, to accelerate the final disposition of the cause.2 4. Motions. An application to strike out a motion as frivolous should not be entertained, since a motion is itself a summary proceeding, subject to be disposed of without undue delay.3 Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia 531. England. II Q. B. D. 464. Gamble, 6 Ch. D. 748. McGowan v. Middleton, See also Harris v. Matter Alleged Must Be Clearly Intended as Counterclaim. To prevent the matter alleged from being assailed as sham or frivolous, it must be desig. nated as a counterclaim, and it must clearly appear that it is intended as such, otherwise it will be treated as a defense, subject to summary disposition. Saratoga Springs First Nat. Bank v. Slattery, 4 N. Y. App. Div 421, citing Collins 2. Suau, 7 Robt. (N. Y.) 94. and Fettretch v. McKay, 47 N. Y. 426, II Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 453. To the same effect see Kurtz v. McGuire, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 660; Clough v. Murray, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Gen. T.) 19 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 97; Lee Bank v. Kitching. 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 664, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 435; Equitable L. Assur. Soc. v. Cuyler, 75 N. Y. 511; Wright . Delafield, 25 N. Y. 266, reversing 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 498; Bates v. Rosekrans, (Ct. App.) 4 Abb. Pr. N. S.( N. Y.) 276, affirmed 37 N. Y. 409; Burke v. Thorne, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 363; Ward 7. Comegys, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 2 How. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 428. 1. Colorado. Denver Tramway Co. 2. Owens, 20 Colo. 107; Patrick v. McManus, 14 Colo. 65, 20 Am. St. Rep. 253 Parker v. Cochrane, II Colo. 363. Missouri. Tarwater v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co, 42 Mo. 193; Vickers v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 42 Mo. 198; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mertens, 78 Mo. App. 74, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 237. North Carolina. - Yancey County v. Piercy, 72 N. Car. 181; McKinnon 7. Morrison, 104 N. Car. 354. South Carolina. Badham v. Brabham, 54 S. Car. 400. But see Harman v. Harman, 54 S. Car. 100. Wisconsin. Wis. 550. Wilson v. Burhans, 96 Sawy. (U. S.) 595, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,119; Neff v. Pennoyer, 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 495. 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,085. Canada. Atty. Gen. v. Vaughan Road Co., 14 Ont. Pr. 516. 2. Larco v. Casaneuava, 30 Cal. 561, per Sawyer, J.; Hill . Warner, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 424; Garvey v. Fowler, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 665, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 16; Munn v. Barnum, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 281, 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 563; Benedict v. Tanner, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 455; Caswell 7. Bushnell, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 393, 7 How. Pr. (N Y.) 171; Jameson v. Laing, 7 Ont. Pr. 404; Sheppard v. Kennedy, 10 Ont. Pr. 242; Horner v. Keppel, 10 Ad. & El. 17, note a, 37 E. C. L. 21, citing Haworth v. White. I Arn. 278. Compare dicta to the effect that pleadings filed for delay may be stricken out solely on that ground in Crary z. Ashley, 4 Ark. 203; Sullivant . Reardon, 5 Ark. 141; Orange v. Berry, 24 N. H. 105, cited in Wells Jackson Iron Mfg. Co., 44 N. H. 61; Walker v. Hewitt, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 395: Thellusson v. Smith, 5 T. R. 152, cited in 1 Chit. 355, note, 18 E. C. L. 106, note, and Hopgood z. Wright, 2 B. & P. N. R. 188. United States. - Wythe z. Myers, 3 Rejecting Pleas. Where it is necessary to apply to the discretion of the court for leave to file a plea, as where it is sought to file one out of time, leave may be refused if it is manifest that delay is the only object sought. Evans v. Pettyjohn, 26 Gratt. Va.) 604. 3. Lang v. Superior Ct., 71 Cal. 491; White v. Morgan, 119 Ind. 338; Blemel v. Shattuck, 133 Ind. 498; Long v. Ruch, 148 Ind. 74. See also Johnson v. Moore, 112 Ind. 91, wherein it was held that if in any case a motion to reject a motion is proper, it certainly is not proper where the motion attacked shows an apparent right to the relief asked by it. A Motion to Strike Out a Motion Is IN IV. SUMMARY REMEDY 1. Inherent Power of Courts a. GENERAL. The power summarily to dispose of issues raised by sham and frivolous pleadings in advance of the trial of the cause existed at the early common law, and at least to the extent there exercised it is inherent in the courts, not requiring statutory confirmation.1 Code provisions and statutes merely conferring the Itself Frivolous, and ought not to be entertained or entered of record by the trial court; and after it has been filed, the court ought, of its own motion, to strike it out as a needless incumbrance. White . Morgan, 119 Ind. 338, approved in Blemel v. Shattuck, 133 Ind. 498. Appeal from Order Granting Such Application. Where an appeal has been taken from an order sustaining an application to strike out a motion as frivolous, it will be treated as if the error assigned was that of overruling the original motion, that being the real effect of the decision below. Lang v. Superior Ct., 71 Cal. 491; Blemel v. Shattuck, 133 Ind. 498; Long v. Ruch, 148 Ind. 74. Proper Remedies for Frivolous Motion. - A frivolous motion may be overruled immediately, without regard to a statutory provision requiring that motions shall be filed for a certain time before they are passed upon. Valle 2. Picton, 16 Mo. App. 178, reversed on other grounds in 91 Mo. 207. A motion to strike a petition from the files that is without merits and frivolous may be disregarded by the court, and judgment may be rendered against a defendant who is in default for want of an answer, if the time for answering has expired. Kellogg v. Churchill, I West. L. Month. 46, 2 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 4. Where a party is entitled as a matter of course to the interlocutory relief which he asks, if he makes application therefor in an oppressive and vexatious form, productive of unnecessary expense, the application will be discharged with costs against the applicant. Brunswick v. Sloman, 5 C. B. 219, 57 E. C. L. 219. New Jersey. N. J. L. 262. New York. Brewster v. Hall, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 34; Broome County Bank v. Lewis, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 565; Grant v. Power, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 500; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Smith, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 329; Slack v. Cotton, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 398; People v. McCumber, 18 N. Y. 315, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 186, affirming 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 632; Mier v. Cartledge, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 75, reversing on other grounds 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 115, 2 Code Rep. (N. Y.) 125 Walter v. Walter, 35 - North Carolina. Boone v. Hardie, 83 N. Car. 470. Canada. - Gabel v. Harding, 4 N. Bruns, 71, cited in Harris v. Fowle, 22 N. Bruns. 388; Chipman v. Ritchie, 5 Nova Scotia 710. Missouri. Frivolous Pleadings North. Nelson, 21 Mo. 360; Cashman . Anderson, 26 Mo. 67; Sapington v. Jeffries, 15 Mo. 629; Barley &. Cannon, 17 Mo. 595; State Bank v. Smith, 33 Mo. 364; Phillips v. Evans, 38 Mo. 306; Howell v. Stewart, 54 Mo. 400; Keane. Klausman, 21 Mo. App. 485. New Jersey. - North Brunswick Tp. v. Booraem, 10 N. J. L. 257. Ohio. Larimore v. Wells, 29 Ohio St. 13; Sargent v. Steubenville, etc., R. Co., 32 Ohio St. 456. Rhode Island. Crafts . Sweeney, 18 R. I. 730. See also Wright v. Card, 16 R. I. 719; Versepuy v. Watson, 12 R. I. 342. Virginia. Duval V. Malone, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 24. West Virginia. State 7. Purcell, 31 W. Va. 44. "The Sham and Frivolous Answers. courts without the aid of any statute have long exercised the right to strike sham and frivolous answers." Larson v. Winder, 14 Wash. 647. To the same effect see Brown 7. Warden, 44 N. J. L. 177; Coykendall v. Robinson, 39 N. J. L. 98; Allen v. Wheeler, 21 N. J. L. 93; Anonymous, 7 N. J. L. 160; Orange v. Berry, 24 N. H. 105 |