Frivolous

An answer or plea Is frivolous which controverts no material allegation in the complaint, and which is manifestly insufficient. Under the English common-law amendment act, and by the codes of some of the states, the court Is authorized to strike out such a plea, so that the plaintiff can obtain judgment without awaiting the regular call of the cause; Lefferts v. Sned- Iker, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 41; New Jersey Zinc Co. V. Blood, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 149; Brown V. Jenison, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 7.32; Dobson v. Hallowell, 53 Minn. 98, 54 N. W. 939; Lerdall V. Ins. Co., 51 Wls. 430, 8 N. W. 280.

See Rubber Co. v. Mc Allester, 1 Misc. 483, 21 N. y. Supp. 767.

An answer cannot be stricken out on the ground that it is frivolous, where an extended argument or illustration is required to demonstrate its frailty; Deuel v. Sanford, 67 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 354; Exchange Fire Ins. Co. of New York City v. Norris, 74 Hun 527, 26 N. Y. Supp. 823. A pleading Interposed for delay is frivolous, but a pleading is not frivolous because vague; Farmers’ & Millers’ Bank v. Sawyer, 7 Wls. 383; Kelly V. Barnett, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 136; Yerkes V. Crum, 2 N. D. 72, 49 N. W. 422. Frivolous is not synonymous with irrelevant; Fasnacht v. Stehn, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. y.) 338, 343; id., 63 Barb. (N, Y.) 650.