D'Arcy v. Steuer
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin for certain doors alleged to be the property of the plaintiff and detained by the defendant. Writ dated May 4, 1899. The answer was a general denial. In the Superior Court the case was heard without a jury by StevenSy J., who found for the defendant and assessed damages in the sum of $1. Afterwards the defendant moved for an order for a return.
Read the full summary
Replevin for certain doors alleged to be the property of the plaintiff and detained by the defendant. Writ dated May 4, 1899. The answer was a general denial. In the Superior Court the case was heard without a jury by StevenSy J., who found for the defendant and assessed damages in the sum of $1. Afterwards the defendant moved for an order for a return. The plaintiff objected on the ground that the answer being only a general denial did not set up title to the goods in the defendant or show any grounds for a return of the goods replevied, and requested the judge to rule that an order for a…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.
An answer in the form of a general denial long has been sanctioned under our practice act. Boston Relief & Submarine Co. v. Burnett, 1 Allen, 410. It is permissible in replevin, as in other personal actions, and puts in issue the plaintiff’s right of possession. Spooner v. Cummings, 151 Mass. 313. In other words it is broader than the old plea non eepit, and dispenses with the necessity of an avowry or cognizance in order to justify a judgment for a return. See Bartlett v. Brickett, 98 Mass. 521; Pub. Sts. c. 184, § 13. The practice in many other States under statutes would seem to be more or…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Holliday v. McKinneSupreme Court of Florida · 1886
- Spooner v. CummingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Conner v. ComstockIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
- King v. RamsayIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
- Fleet v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Winton Motor Carriage Co. v. Broadway Automobile Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
- Wylie v. MarinofskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Frisch v. WellsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Dunbar-Laporte Motor Co. v. DesrocherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Pan-American Amusement Co. v. MaguireCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1905