Not according to rule; improper or insufficient, by reason of departure from the prescribed course. As to irregular “Deposit,” “Indorsement,” “Process,” and “Succession,” see those titles.
Category: I
IRREGULAR JUDGMENT
IRREGULARITY
Violation or nonob- servance of established rules and practices. The want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceeding; consisting either in omitting to do something that is necessary for the due and orderly conducting of a suit, or doing it in an unseasonable time or improper manner. 1 Tidd, Pr. 512. And see McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; Emeric v. Al- varado, 64 Cal. 529, 2 Pac. 418; Hall v. Mun- ger, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 113; Corn Exch. Bank v. Blye, 119 N. Y. 414. 23 N. E. S05; Salter v. Hilgen, 40 Wis. 365; Turrill v. Walker, 4 Mich. 1S3. “Irregularity” is the technical term for every defect in practical proceedings, or the mode of conducting an action or defense, as distinguishable from defects In pleadings. 3 Chit. Gen. Pr. 509. The doing or not doing that, in the conduct of a suit at law, which, conformably with the practice of the court, ought or ought not to be done. Doe ex dem. Cooper v. Ilarter, 2 Ind. 252. In canon law. Any impediment which prevents a man from taking holy orders.
IRRELEVANCY
The absence of the quality of relevancy in evidence or pleadings. Irrelevancy, in an answer, consists in statements which are not material to the decision of the case; such as do not form or tender any material issue. People v. McCumber, 18 N. Y. 321, 72 Am. Dec. 515; Walker v. Hewitt, 11 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 39S; Carpenter v. Bell, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 715; Smith v. Smith, 50 S. C. 54, 27 S. E. 545.