Summary
noting that counterclaim must meet the same pleading requirements as a complaint
Summary of this case from White v. PotocskaOpinion
Action by the State Mutual Life Assurance Company, a corporation, against Eva E. Leimer and Walter A. Leimer for malicious prosecution, wherein defendants filed separate counterclaims. On defendants' motions to strike certain averments appearing in plaintiff's answer to the counterclaims of defendant.
Motions to strike denied.
Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, John H. Lathrop, and William S. Hogsett, all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Walter A. Leimer, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
REEVES, District Judge.
The question presented here is whether certain averments appearing in the answers of the plaintiff to the counter-claims of the defendants should be stricken.
An examination of the pleadings shows that the averments in said answers are proper responsive pleading. The two defendants filed separate counter-claims to plaintiff's claim, which is a suit for malicious prosecution. On such counter-claims the defendants sought recovery for claims therein stated against the plaintiff. Paragraph by paragraph the plaintiff made answer to such averments and the several motions of the defendants to strike followed. It is the law that a counter-claim must be pleaded as fully and distinctly and with the same substantial requisites as an original cause of action. In like manner, the answer to a counter-claim must, under the laws, be precisely as full and complete as an answer in an original suit.
It is unnecessary to set out the averments sought to be stricken for the reason that each and every one is apt and pertinent and constitute, if the averments are true, a complete defense. Accordingly said motions to strike, and each of them, will be denied.