Ennis v. Hogan
Supreme Court of Missouri
No reply was required in this case. The answer does not confess and avoid the allegation of the petition; does not admit the claim against the defendants by the plaintiffs, and then show a demand existing in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs; is not new matter, nor is it a counter-claim within the meaning of the statute. ‘ ‘ The practice act only requires a reply when the answer contains new matter constituting a counter-claim.”
Read the full summary
No reply was required in this case. The answer does not confess and avoid the allegation of the petition; does not admit the claim against the defendants by the plaintiffs, and then show a demand existing in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs; is not new matter, nor is it a counter-claim within the meaning of the statute. ‘ ‘ The practice act only requires a reply when the answer contains new matter constituting a counter-claim.” (Carpenter v. Meyers, 82 Mo. 218; see generally Holzibauer v. Heine, 37 Mo. 443-4; Jones v. Moore, 42 Mo. 413; Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 686, § 26; Elliot v.…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
The- defendants had judgment on their answer for want of a reply, and the question here is, was the judgment warranted ? In other words, did the answer contain new matter constituting an affirmative defense ?
The alleged indebtedness sued for was originally contracted by a private corporation, in which each of the defendants held $3,000 of stock. It is on that ground they are sought to be held to personal liability, the corporation in the meanwhile having become insolvent and been dissolved. The defendants in their answer admit the alleged insolvency and dissolution, and their alleged relation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Giesen v. . Van GiesenNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
3Cited by6 opinions
- Roden v. HelmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Wilkerson v. FarnhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Blondeau v. SheridanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Bird v. RowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.