Legal Opinion

Reed v. Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 15, 1883Published

Bill for relief. On motion to strike out part of amended answer.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

Nine objections are made to the amended answer. The first and ninth together are, that the clause reserving exceptions, *394the general clause denying combination, the general traverse, and the general proferí of proof, are found in the answer, contrary to the provision of the 214th rule. These objections are unsubstantial, and are directed to what is a mere matter of form. It appears by the statement of counsel, that the amended answer was drawn and filed before the existence of the rule requiring that those matters be omitted from answers was made known to them.

The second…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bartlett v. GaleNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
  2. McCormick v. ChamberlinNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
  3. Baggot v. HenryNew York Court of Chancery · 1831

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API