McQueen v. Babcock
New York Court of Appeals
Dougald McQueen sued Alexander Babcock in the supreme court, for damages for wrongfully seizing and taking away from plaintiff’s possession and converting to defendant’s own use certain personal property of which plaintiff was possessed as general assignee for benefit of creditors of one Henry A. Brown.
Read the full summary
Dougald McQueen sued Alexander Babcock in the supreme court, for damages for wrongfully seizing and taking away from plaintiff’s possession and converting to defendant’s own use certain personal property of which plaintiff was possessed as general assignee for benefit of creditors of one Henry A. Brown. The defendant put in an answer, containing a general denial and another defense; and, within twenty days after the service of this answer, he served an amended answer, setting up, besides the defenses contained in the original answer, the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s attorney returned…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Grover, J.
—
The general term correctly held that the defendant had the right to serve an amended answer twenty days after service of the original, and to include therein a new defense. Code of Pro. § 172; Thompson v. Minford, 11 How. 273; Wyman v. Remond, 18 Id. 272. This is now the settled practice of the supreme court. The idea that the defense of usury or of the statute of limitations, was to be treated in this respect different from other defenses, has been exploded. Courts now regard all legal defenses as entitled *133in this respect to the same consideration. The question in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Estate of MillerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1937
- Van Wagonen v. . TerpenningNew York Court of Appeals · 1890