Austin v. Chittenden
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit; The plaintifi’s second count declared in the common form on a note executed by John Bradley and indorsed by the defendant, the payee, to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit; The plaintifi’s second count declared in the common form on a note executed by John Bradley and indorsed by the defendant, the payee, to the plaintiff. The defendant’s fourth plea was as follows : “ And for a further plea in this behalf as to the second count in said declaration, the said defendant says that the said plaintiff ought not to have or maintain her aforesaid action thereof against him, because he says that after the making of the promise in the said second count mentioned, to wit, on the first day of May, 1854, at said Burlington, in consideration that the said John…
1Opinion of the CourtPierpoint, J.
The questions in this case arise upon a demurrer tb the plaintiff’s replication to the defendant's plea.
The replication was filed under and in pursuance of the statute passed in 1856, relating to proceedings and costs in suits at law. And the first question that naturally arises is as to the sufficiency of this replication under that statute.
The statute provides that “ the party against whom matter is specially pleaded in confession and avoidance in answer to matter by him antecedently alleged, may by a general form of denial traverse and put in issue all the material facts so pleaded by the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Capen v. WoodrowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
- Paddock v. JonesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868