Souzer v. De Meyer
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decretal order of the late vice chancellor of the second circuit. The defendants plead the statute of limitations to the whole bill, and at the same time put in an answer denying the whole equity thereof.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decretal order of the late vice chancellor of the second circuit. The defendants plead the statute of limitations to the whole bill, and at the same time put in an answer denying the whole equity thereof. The vice chancellor made an order, declaring, among other things, that the statute did not apply, and was no defence to the matters and charges contained in the bill; and for that reason he overruled the plea, with liberty, however, to the defendants to insist on the statute in their answer as a defence.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It is a well settled principle of. equity pleading, that the defendant cannot plead and answer, or plead and demur, as to the same matter. If he pleads to any part of the bill, he asks the judgment of the court whether the matters of the plea are not sufficient to excuse him from answering so much of the bill as is covered, by the plea. Therefore, if he answers as to those matters which by his plea he has declined to answer, he overrules the plea; and if he demurs to any part of the bill, and also puts in a plea, which is a special answer to the same part, the demurrer is…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Loder v. . HatfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Borst v. . CoreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Rundle v. . AllisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Paff v. KinneyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1849
- Thomas v. BrinsfieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.