Hackley v. Ogmun
New York Supreme Court
This action is brought to recoven the possession of personal property, and is; familiarly known as an action of replevin. The defendant, in his answer interposes a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, and, secondly, a justification for the taking of the property, under executions againt one William Bingham, whom the answer alleges to be the owner of the property.
Read the full summary
This action is brought to recoven the possession of personal property, and is; familiarly known as an action of replevin. The defendant, in his answer interposes a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, and, secondly, a justification for the taking of the property, under executions againt one William Bingham, whom the answer alleges to be the owner of the property. At the commencement of the trial in the circuit, the counsel for the plaintiff moved the court that the defendant be required to elect upon which of the two defences set up in his answer he would rely, upon the ground…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court—Mason, Justice.
The simple question presented for our determination therefore, is, whether in this action the defendant, under our present system of pleading, can set up a general denial and a justification in his answer, where they are separately pleaded. At common law, a defendant could not plead several distinct pleas to the same declaration, or a part thereof; (1 Chitty’s Pl. 592,593 ;) but by the statute 4 and 5 Anne, chapter 16, sec. 4 and 5, the defendant, with leave of the court, was allowed to plead as many several matters as he should think necessary for his defence, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Derby v. GallupSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Bell v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Wendling v. PierceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Wendling v. PierceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898