
    Jones v. Farrington.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    May 18, 1889.)
    Pleading—Motion to Strike Out—Irrelevant Averments.
    Averments of an answer, in an action for board furnished to a third person, as alleged, at defendant’s request, and on his promise to pay, that the account for hoard, if due, was for board furnished a person other than defendant, not a member of his family, and that defendant’s alleged promise to pay for the same was to answer for the debt of another, of which there was no note or memorandum in. writing, etc., should not be stricken out as irrelevant and redundant.
    Appeal from Westchester county court.
    Action by Alexander Jones against Samuel L. Farrington. The complaint alleged: “First. That said plaintiff is an inn or hotel keeper in the village of White Plains, in the county of Westchester, and that the defendant resides in said county. Second. That on or about the 18th day of February, 1888, an account was stated between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby it appeared that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $90.80, which amount defendant promised the plaintiff to pay him, and did then and there pay on account thereof to the plaintiff $60.00, but no further sum has been paid on said indebtedness, and the sum of $30.81 is still due on account thereof as aforesaid. Third. That there became due and owing in the last day of each of the 13 weeks respectively next succeeding the 18th day of February, 1888, from the defendant to the plaintiff, for board and lodging furnished at the agreed price of five dollars a week for each of said weeks by plaintiff to the defendant’s brother at the special instance and request of the defendant, thirteen several sums of $5 each, amounting in all to the sum of $65, which said sum the said defendant promised and agreed to pay the plaintiff for the board and lodging aforesaid; and, though thereunto duly requested, neither the said defendant, nor any one on ins behalf, has paid the said sum of $65, or any part thereof, and the same is wholly due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff, with interest.” Defendant answered as follows: “Defendant, for answer to the amended complaint, shows: (1) Admits his residence and the payment of $60, all as alleged. (2) Denies each and every allegation, and part thereof, in said complaint contained, not hereinbefore specifically admitted. (3) For further answer and a separate defense: That plaintiff’s account runs back of dates stated for some years, and large sums have been paid thereon. Amounts defendant knows not; and no balance was ever struck, or settlement in full made, or account stated. That the alleged stated account, if due and owing, is due and owing for board and lodging furnished to one James B. Farrington, and not to defendant, who is a married man, or to any of his family. That the board and lodging, furnished as alleged in allegation 3 of said complaint, were, if furnished, furnished to one said James B. Farrington, and not to defendant or to any of his family. That no action or proceeding at law has been had to collect of said James B. Farrington the sums sought to be recovered herein of defendant. This allegation is on information and belief. That there is a defect and non-joinder of parties defendant to this action in that said James B. Farrington, who is a necessary party defendant, has not been made a party defendant to this action. (4) For further answer and a separate and distinct defense: Reiterates and makes part of this defense the allegations contained in the 3d paragraph of this answer down to the words, ‘ That there is a defect of parties; ’ and further shows that the alleged promises set forth in said complaint, if made, were special promises to answer for the debts of another, to-wit, said James B. Farrington. That no note or memorandum of such special promises or contracts was made in writing; or subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, to-wit, defendant. Wherefore defendant demands judgment,” etc. The court ordered stricken out as “irrelevant and redundant * * * all of said answer with the exception of the part thereof from the beginning thereof down to the words ‘ That the alleged stated account,’ and with the exception of the part thereof wherein it is alleged that there is a defect of parties, and with the exception of the demand of judgment and verification of said answer,” and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, ,TJ.
    
      J. C. & W. J. Donohue, for appellant. Fred’k Wm. Sherman, for respondent.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the county court of Westchester county striking out portions of the answer of the defendant in this action which is pending in that county court. An examination of the answer discloses no redundant or irrelevant allegation, except perhaps the charge that no action had been commenced against the brother of the defendant, to whom the board was furnished. That averment may be unnecessary, but no other objection can be lodged against the answer, and the order is much too broad and sweeping. The order should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.  