pears for two or more defendants, only one copy of the complaint need be served upon him; and if, after service of a copy of the complaint upon him, as attorney for a defendant, he appears for another defendant, the last defendant must answer the complaint within twenty days after he appears in the action.(1)

Substitute for part of 130, Co. Proc. See post, 824. (1) Mackay . Laidlaw, 13 How. 129; Paine v. McCarthy, 3 T. & C. 755; 8. c., I Hun, 18; Engs v. Overing, 2 Code R. 79: Travis v. Tobias, 7 How. 90. (2) Ferris v. Soley, 23 How. 422; Walsh v. Kursheedt, 8 Abb. 418; Luce . Trempert, 9 How. 212.

§ 480. Consequence of failure. If the plaintiff's attorney fails to serve a copy of the complaint, as prescribed in the last section, the defendant may apply to the court for a dismissal of the complaint.

New. See 821, 822, post.

8481. Complaint; what to contain. The complaint must contain:

1. The title of the action, specifying the name of the court in which it is brought; (1) if it is brought in the supreme court, the name of the county, which the plaintiff designates as the place of trial;(2) and the names of all the parties to the action, plaintiff and defendant.(3) 2. A plain and concise statement of the facts, constituting each cause of action, without unnecessary repetition.

3. A demand of the judgment to which the plaintiff supposes himself entitled.(4)

Co. Proc., 142, am'd. (1) Overrules Van Namee v. People, 9 How. 198; Merrill. Grinnell, 10 id. 31; Van Benthuysen v. Stevens, 14 d. 70. (2) Merrill. Grinnell, 10 How. 32; Hotchkiss v. Orocker, 15 id. 336, Davison Powell, 13 1d. 288: Dorman. Kellam, 14 1d. 184; s. c., 4 Abb. 202. (3) Overrules Hill. Thacter, 3 How. 407. See Stanley v. Chappell, 3 Cow. 235: Murray. Church, 3 T. & C. 145; s. c., 1 Hun, 49; Wheelock v. Lee, 15 A bb. N. S. 24; Bonesteel v. Garlinghouse, 60 Barb. 338 Rockwell v. Mer win, 45 N. Y. 166; Johnson v. Ackerson, 3 Daly, 430. See ante, 3451, and note to Voorhies' Code, 142. (4) See Graves v. Waite, 59 N. Y. 156 Hofhelmer v. Campbell, id. 269; Clare v. National City Bk., 14 Abb. N. 8. 326: Hale v. Omaha Nat. Bk., 49 N. Y. 626; Caswell v. West, 3 T. & 0.383; Hopkins v. Lane, 4 id. 311; s. c., 2 Hun, 38; Waters v. Crawford, 2 T.&O. 602: Elmwood v. Gardner, 45 N. Y. 349; Degraw v. Elmore, 50 1d.1; Ross v. Mather, 51 id. 108; Judge v. Hall, 5 Lans. 69; Barclay v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 6 id. 25. Also, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 281; 14 Abb. 150; 10 How. 50; 2 Duer, 674; 5 Sandf. 566; 11 Barb. 569; 32 id. 92; 19 N. Y. 271; 4 Bosw. 603; 17 Abb. 184; 7 N. Y. 478; 10 fd. 363; 3 Duer, 632; 20 Barb. 455; 91d. 158: 38 How. 97; 6 id. 269; 21 id. 296; 3 Abb. N. S. 197; 3 Sandf. 668: 11 1d. 202; 8 N. Y. 115; 10 Abb. 445. And see Wait's Code, note to 1142; Voorhies' Code, id.

§ 482. [Amended, 1877.] When interlocutory and final judgment may be demanded. - In an action triable

1

7. That causes of action have been improperly united.(7)

8. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (8)

Co. Proc., 144, am'd by adding subd. 5. (1) Nones v. Hope Mut. Ins. Co., 5 How. 96; s. c., 8 Barb. 541. (2) Wilson v. Mayor. 6 Abb. 6; s. C., 15 How. 500; Koenig. Nott, 8 Abb. 384; s. c., 2 Hilt. 323; Hotchkiss. Elting, 36 Barb. 38. (3) Phoenix Bank . Donnell, 40 N. Y. 410; Kennedy v. Cotton, 28 Barb. 59: Fulton F. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 N. Y. 648: Town v. Lovelass, 4 Hun, 696; Wright. Wright, 54 N, Y. 437; Seaton . Davis, 1 T. & C. 91. (4) Bishop v. Bishop, 7 Rob. 194; Burrows. Miller, 5 How. 51; Williams. Ayrault, 31 Barb. 364; Auburn Bank. Leonard, 20 How. 193. (5) See People v. Crooks, 53 N. Y. 648; Dudley v. Grissler, 37 N. Y. Supr. 412; Thurston v. Elmira, 10 Abb. N. 8. 119; Barton v. Spels, 5 Hun, 60; Jackson v. Brookins, id. 530; Fuller v. Fuller, id. 595; Simar v. Canaday, 63 N. Y. 298. (6) Groesbeck v. Duns, comb, 41 How. 302; Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 6 T. & C. 142; s. c. 3 Hun, 692; Hees v. Nellis, 65 Barb. 440; Finnegan v. Carraher, 47 N. Y. 493; Haines v. "Hollister, 64 Id. 1: Moore v. Hegeman, 6 Hun, 290. (7) Anderson v. Hill, 53 Barb. 238; Blossom v. Barrett, 37 N. Y. 434; and see 2 Wait's Pr. 450; Voorhies' Code, note to 144, subd. 5; Wiles v. Suydam, 64 N. Y. 173. (8) Allen v. Malcolm, 12 Abb. N. S. 335; Armour v. Leslie, 39 N.Y. Supr. 353; Grout v. Cooper, 5 Hun, 423; Dawley v. Brow id. 461; Eno v. Mayor, 7 id. 320; Littell v. Sayre, id. 485; Mackey Auer, 8 id. 180.

§ 489. [Stricken out in 1877.]

§ 490. [Amended, 1877.] Demurrer to complaint must specify grounds of objection. The demurrer must distinctly specify the objections to the complaint; otherwise it may be disregarded. An objection, taken under subdivision first, second, fourth, or eighth of section four hundred and eighty-eight of this act, may be stated in the language of the subdivision; an objection, taken under either of the other subdivisions, must point out specifically the particular defect relied upon.

First sentence Co. Proc., part of 145. Remainder new. People v. Crooks, 53 N. Y. 648; Haire v. Baker, 5 id, 357; Getty v. Hudson R. B. B. Co., & How. 177; Hoagland v. Hudson, id. 343; Hulbert v. Young, 13 id. 413; Johnson v. Wetmore, 12 Barb. 433; Fulton F. Ins. Co. v. Bald win, 37 N. Y. 648.

§ 491. [Stricken out in 1877.]

§ 492. Demurrer to all or part of the complaint; demurrer to part, and answer to part.. - The defendant may demur to the whole complaint, or to one of more separate causes of action, stated therein. In the latter case, he may answer the causes of action not de nurred to.

Co. Proc., 145, 2d sentence, consolidated with id., 151. Nicholl v. 59 Barb. 275 Hackley v. Draper, 4 T. & C. 614; Hale v. Omaha Nat. 48 N. Y. 626; Murphy v. Allerton, 7 Hun, 650; Jarvis v. Palmer, ge, 650; Stuyvesant v. Mayor, id. 415; Matthews v. Beach, 8 N. Y. ord v. Vreeland, 24 How. 316; s. c., 13 Abb. 185; and see 5 How.6; 3 E. D. Smith, 369; 3 Paige, 273; 6 Johns. Ch. 214,

§ 493. Defendant may demur to reply. The de fendant may also demur to the reply, or to a separate traverse to, or avoidance of, a defence or counterclaim, contained in the reply, on the ground that it is insufficient in law, upon the face thereof.

Substitute for Co. Proc., 155. Hackley v. Draper, 4 T. & C. 614; White v. Joy, 13 N. Y. 83; Halliday v. Noble, 1 Barb. 137. See Thomas . Loaners' Bank, 38 N. Y. Supr. 466.

§ 494. When plaintiff may demur to answer. — The plaintiff may demur to a counterclaim or a defence consisting of new matter, contained in the answer, on the ground that it is insufficient in law, upon the face thereof.

Id., part of 153. Merritt v. Millard, 5 Bosw. 645; Cobb v. Frazee, i How. 413; Welch'v. Hazelton, 14 id. 97; Walt v. Ferguson, 14 Abb. 379; Peck . Brown, 2 Rob. 129; Graham . Dunnigan, 6 Duer, 629; s. c., Abb. 426; Arthur v. Brooks, 14 Barb. 533; Fettretch v. McKay 47 N. Y. See Armour v. Leslie, 39 N. Y. Supr. 353; Murphy v. Allerton, 7 Hun, 650; Hackley v. Draper, 4 T. & C. 614.

426.

§ 495. [Amended, 1877.] Demurrer to counterclaim, when defendant demands an affirmative judgment. The plaintiff may also demur to a counterclaim, upon which the defendant demands an affirmative judgment, where one or more of the following objections thereto, appear on the face of the counterclaim:

1. That the court has not jurisdiction of the subject thereof.

2. That the defendant has not legal capacity to recover upon the same.

3. That there is another action pending between the same parties, for the same cause.

4. That the counterclaim is not of the character specified in section 501 of this act.

5. That the counterclaim does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

New. See post, 509. See Armour v. Leslie, 39 N. Y. Supr. 353; Graham v. Dunnigan, 6 Duer, 629; s. c., 4 Abb. 426.

§ 496. [Amended, 1877.] Demurrer to counterclaim must specify grounds of objection. A demurrer, taken under the last section, must distinctly specify the ob jections to the counterclaim; otherwise it may be disregarded. The mode of specifying the objections is the same, as where a demurrer is taken to a complaint.

See the note to the last section.

§ 497. [Amended, 1877.] Amendments in certain cases after decision of demurrer. Upon the decision of a demurrer, either at a general or special term, or in the court of appeals, the court may, in its discretion, allow the party in fault to plead anew or amend, upon such terms as are just.(1) If a demurrer to a complaint is allowed, because two or more causes of action have been improperly united, the court may, in its discretion, and upon such terms as are just, direct that the action be divided into as many actions, as are necessary for the proper determination of the causes of action therein stated.(2)

Co. Proc., part of 172. (1) Fielden v. Carrelli, 26 How. 173; s. 16 Abb. 289; Lord v. Vreeland, 13 Abb. 195; Snow v. First Nat. Bank, Rob. 480; Lowry v. Inman, 6 Abb. N. S. 395; Whiting v. Mayor, 37 N. Y. 600; Thatcher v. Candee, 3 Keyes, 157. (2) See Robinson v. Judd, 9 How. 378-383, and 456, ante, and 1205, post.

§ 498. [Amended, 1877.] When objection may be taken by answer. Where any of the matters enumerated in section four hundred and eighty-eight of this act as grounds of demurrer, do not appear on the face of the complaint, the objection may be taken by answer.

Id., 147. Barclay v. Quick-silver Min. Co., 6 Lans. 25; Fulton Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 N. Y. 648; Dillaye v. Parks, 31 Barb. 132; Schofield v. Van Syckle, 23 How. 97; Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 6 T. & C. 142]; 8. c., 3 Hun, 692; Hees v. Nellis, 65 Barb. 440; Fox v. Moyer, 54 N. Y.

125.

$499. Objection; when deemed waived. -If such an objection is not taken, either by demurrer or answer, the defendant is deemed to have waived it; except the objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or the objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

I., 148. Giles v. Austin, 62 N. Y. 486; Fisher v. Hall, 41 id. 416; Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, supra; Town v. Lovelass, 4 Hun, 696; Selo ver v. Coe, 63 N. Y. 438; Mosselman v. Caen, 4 T. & C. 171; People v. Crooks, 53 N. Y. 648.

ARTICLE THIRD.

ANSWER.

No. 500. Answer; what to contain.

501. Counterclaim defined.

502. Rules respecting the allowance of counterclaims.

503. Judgment, when demand and counterclaim are equal or z

equal.

Id.; for affirmative relief.

c. 505. Counterclaim, when defendant is sued in a representative ca pacity.

506. Id.; when plaintiff is an executor or administrator.

507. Defendant may interpose several defences or counterclaims ; rules relating thereto.

508. Partial defences.

509. When defendant to demand affirmative judgment.

511. When pleadings admit part of plaintiff's claim to be just, action may be severed, etc.

512. Judgment, where counterclaim only is interposed for less than plaintiff's claim.

513. Dilatory defences to be verified.

$ 500. [Amended, 1877.] Answer; what to contain -The answer of the defendant must contain:

1. A general or specific denial of each material allegation of the complaint controverted by the defendant,(1) or of any knowledge or information thereof suffi cient to form a belief.(2)

2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defence or counterclaim, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition.(3)

Co. Proc., 149. (1) Mack v. Burt, 5 Hun, 28; Walsh v. Mehrback. 51d. 448; Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286; Allis v. Leopard, 46 id. 688 Thompson v. Erie Ry., 45 id. 468. Facts provable under: Powers v. Rome, etc., 5 T. & C. 499; Townsend v. Townsend, 1 Abb. N. C 81; People v. Christopher, 4 Hun, 805; Goodwin v. Hirsch, 37 N. Y. Supr. 503; Greenfield v. Mass. Mut. Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 430; Hier v. Grant id. 278; Evans v. Williams, 60 Barb. 346; Dalrymple v. Hunt, 5 Hun, 111: Carpenter v. Goodwin, 4 Daly, 89; Manning v. Winter, 7 Hun, 482; Boomer v. Koon, 6 id. 645; Miller v. Ins. Co., 1 Abb. N. C. 470. (2) Meehan v. Harlem Sav. Bank, 5 Hun, 439; Lloyd v. Burns, 38 N. Y. Supr. 423. See People v. Fields, 58 N. Y. 491; Powers v. Rome, etc.. R. R. Co., 5 T. & C. 449. (3) Manning v. Winter, 7 Hun, 482; Jay v. Hammond, 57 N. Y. 479; Springer v. Dwyer, 50 id. 19; Dubola v. Hermance, 56 id. 673; Wehle v. Butler, 43 How. 5; Strong v. Sproul, 53 N. Y. 497; Inslee v. Hampton, & Hun, 230. See note to Voorhies' and Walt's Codes.

§ 501. [Amended, 1877.] Counterclaim defined. The counterclaim, specified in the last section, must tend, in some way, to diminish or defeat the plaintiff's recovery,(1) and must be one of the following causes of action against the plaintiff, or, in a proper case, against the person whom he represents, (2) and in favor of the defendant, or of one or more defendants, between whom and the plaintiff a separate judgment may be had in the action: (3)

1. A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction, set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, or connected with the subject of the action.(4)

3. In an action on contract, any other cause of action