TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maison De Marchands Industrielle Ltee-Industrial Merchants, Ltd. v. New York Silicate Book Slate Co.

MAISON DE MARCHANDS INDUSTRIELLE LTEE-INDUSTRIAL MERCHANTS, LIMITED v. NEW YORK SILICATE BOOK SLATE CO., Inc.

Maison De Marchands Industrielle Ltee-Indus. Merchants v. N.Y. Silicate Book Slate Co., 13 F.R.D. 15 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 20, 1952
Judges
Weinfeld
Citations
13 F.R.D. 151952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4957

Opinion of the Court — Weinfeld

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

With the exception of a dictum in Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., Inc., D.C., 48 F.Supp. 979 , there is agreement that a plaintiff may plead a counterclaim in a reply. Downey v. Palmer, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 83 ; Mid-States Products Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 592 ; Warren v. Indian Refining Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 281 ; Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. John Bowen Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 274 ; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, § 13.08, pp. 22-23.

These holdings are based on Rule 13(a), 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which * * * the pleader has against any opposing party” and the language in Rule 18(a), “The plaintiff in his complaint or in a reply setting forth a counterclaim 1 and the defendant in an answer setting forth a counterclaim * * Since the complaint, the defendant’s first counterclaim and the plaintiff’s counterclaim thereto all arise out of the same contract, the rule is especially appropriate here.

The defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s counterclaim to the defendant’s first counterclaim is denied.

Settle order on notice.

. Emphasis supplied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1954: 11955: 11967: 11968: 11976: 119542026peak 1954 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hilderbrand v. Anderson270 S.W.2d 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. T. L. Smith Co. v. District Court431 P.2d 454 (Colo. 1967)
  3. Ivey v. Daus17 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)
  4. Southeastern Industrial Tire Co. v. Duraprene Corp.70 F.R.D. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1976)
  5. Rubewa Products Co. v. Watson's Quality Turkey Products, Inc.242 A.2d 609 (D.C. 1968)

Most recent

  1. Southeastern Industrial Tire Co. v. Duraprene Corp.70 F.R.D. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1976)
  2. Rubewa Products Co. v. Watson's Quality Turkey Products, Inc.242 A.2d 609 (D.C. 1968)
  3. T. L. Smith Co. v. District Court431 P.2d 454 (Colo. 1967)
  4. Ivey v. Daus17 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)
  5. Hilderbrand v. Anderson270 S.W.2d 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Warren v. Indian Ref. Co., 30 F. Supp. 281 (N.D. Ind. 1939) 14
Downey v. Palmer, 31 F. Supp. 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1939) 7
Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., 48 F. Supp. 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1943) 7
Mid-States Prods. Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp., 10 F.R.D. 592 (E.D. Ill. 1949) 6
Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. John Bowen Co., 1 F.R.D. 274 (D. Mass. 1940) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list