Sleght v. Hartshorne
New York Supreme Court
PENDLETON, for the defendant, moved for leave to amend the special verdict in this cause, by striking out the following words, “ that the said plaintiff, made to the said “ defendants, the usual proof of interest, and. proof of loss, “ more than thirty days before the commencement of his “ action, as was required by the said writing or policy of “ assurance,” which had been added to the verdict when it was corrected before the judge who tried the cause.
1Per curiam
As the defendants at the trial, made no objection to the want of preliminary proofs, but proceeded in their defence on the merits of the causé, it must be presumed that their existence and competency were admitted. Being matter merely formal, and not controverted by the defendants, it 'was proper to state their admission in the special verdict.
Rule refused.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Emerson v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Emerson v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867