Ten'broeck v. . Orchard

Smith, C. J. (After stating the case as above'.)' 0n. examining the answer we do not perceive such repugnancy in. the defences as seems to have attracted the animadversion, of the Court. The allegations all point to the necessity of an account, and the controverted facts are mostly if not altogether connected with, and necessary to be settled in order to the proper taking of the account and the ascertainment of the equities involved in it. But if such repug-nancy is to be found in the answer, we know of no principle or rule of law which authorizes an order for its reformation. Pleadings are prepared by counsel, and upon him rests- the responsibility for imperfections which may render them, unserviceable to the client. It is not the province of the Judge to order a correction of errors or the removal of defects, though on application he may permit this to be done. But inconsistent defences in an answer are not obnoxious to-criticism when properly and distinctly set out. Incompati *521 ble pleas were admissible under our former system, and a defendant could deny the plaintiff’s claim and at the same time insist on its being paid, or the bar of the statute of limitations; so now, he may by the express words of the statute, “ set forth by answer as many defences and counter claims as he may have, whether they be such as have heretofore been denominated legal or equitable, or both.” C. C. P., § 102. We presume the absence of previously prepared and clearly defined issues introduced confusion at the trial, to remove which the order was inadvertently made. There is error in the ruling of the Court, and the cause is remanded to the end that further proceedings be had in the Superior Court according to law. Error. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.