
    Lippman Tannebaum, Resp't, v. Max Marsellus et at., App'lts.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 14, 1893.)
    
    1. Pleading—Léate to amend.
    Leave to amend an answer after the time therefor has expired is usually granted, unless the amendment seeks to interpose some unconscionable defense; but a counterclaim cannot be so considered.
    3. Same—Counterclaim—Principal and agent.
    In an action by an undisclosed principal for goods sold by his agent, am amendment of the answer sufficiently broad to allow proof of that fact, and counterclaiming for a debt due from the agent, should be allowed.
    
      Appeal from order denying motion for leave to serve amended answer setting up a counterclaim.
    
      Franklin Bien, for resp’t; Wm. L. Clark, for app’lt.
   Van Wyck, J.

Two days after the expiration of the time within which had the right to amend as of course he applied for leave to serve a proposed amended answer, setting up a counterclaim, and was denied such permission by the order appealed from. Such applications, as a„ general rule, are usually ■granted, unless the amendment seeks to interpose some unconscionable defense; bufa counterclaim, recognized by the law, cannot be so considered. No reason was assigned for denying defendant's application, and none is suggested by respondent’s counsel, •except that it is simply matter of evidence, and not of pleading,” and this is not sound in view of the fact that the amended plea is amply broad enough to allow proof of just such facts as were recognized as a valid counterclaim in Hogan v. Schorb, 24 Wend., 458, which simply followed the rule as laid down in Rabone v. Williams, 7 T. R., 360, by Lord Mansfield, that “ Where a factor dealing for a principal, but concealing the principal, delivers goods in his own name, the person contracting with him has a right to consider him to all intents and purposes as the principal; and though the real principal may appear and bring an action upon that contract against the purchaser of the goods, yet that purchaser may set off any claim he may have against the factor in answer to the demand of the principal. This has been long settled.” The Hogan case is followed in Pratt v. Collins, 20 Hun, 126, and approved in Bliss v. Bliss, 7 Bosw., 339. The rules of pleading counterclaims as laid down by the Code do not in any way change the above rule of law. The defendant should have been permitted to interpose the amended answer upon payment of ten dollars, and the order denying his application is reversed, and permission is given him to serve same within six days, upon payment of ten dollars to plaintiff’s attorney.

Fitzsimons, J., concurs.  