Bridge v. Payson
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an appeal, by the defendant,.from a judgment at a special term, in favor of the plaintiff. It is necessary to state the pleadings, in order that the questions raised, and the decision of the court, may be clearly understood.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, by the defendant,.from a judgment at a special term, in favor of the plaintiff. It is necessary to state the pleadings, in order that the questions raised, and the decision of the court, may be clearly understood. The complaint and answer are as follows :— George Bridge, the plaintiff in this action, complains of I. F. Payson, defendant, a resident of the city and county of New York, and says that the said I. F. Payson, defendant, is indebted to him for goods, wares, and merchandise, sold and delivered to the said defendant, by the plaintiff, in the city of New York ; that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Sandford, J.
The plaintiff makes several objections to the form in which the defence was presented and urged. We will consider them in their order.
I. Part of the answer putting in issue the sale to the defendant, sets up one defence, and if any other were intended, it should have been stated separately. This is amplified by insisting that the manner in which the subsequent defence is pleaded, does not sufficiently show an intent to raise an objection on the ground of a non-joinder of the defendant’s copartner ; that if properly pleaded, the defence would allege in terms that the *216co…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Bell v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Resch v. SennWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Harriott v. New Jersey RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1858
- Clough v. MurrayThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
- Charlton v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.