Hood v. Inman
New York Court of Chancery
EXCEPTIONS to the defendant’s answer: 1. Thai the answer fo* tb, in h<-ec verba, a copy of the power of attorney from the plaintiff to the defend™?» and Lang3 mentioned in the bill, though the defendant was iiT-it requested so to do, and though the substance of the power was fully stated in the bill, nod when, by setting it forth m kcec verba, the sense and legal effect of it are not, in the least, qualified or varied from the same instrument as set, forth in the bill. 2.…
Read the full summary
EXCEPTIONS to the defendant’s answer: 1. Thai the answer fo* tb, in h<-ec verba, a copy of the power of attorney from the plaintiff to the defend™?» and Lang3 mentioned in the bill, though the defendant was iiT-it requested so to do, and though the substance of the power was fully stated in the bill, nod when, by setting it forth m kcec verba, the sense and legal effect of it are not, in the least, qualified or varied from the same instrument as set, forth in the bill. 2. Because, the defendant has, in his answer, from a part _of the 17th page thereof) to a part of the 19th page thereof,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
1. It was not necessary to set forth the power of attorney in kcec verba, in the answer. The substance of it was accurately stated in the bill, and to give it at length in the answer, was impertinent. Impertinence consists (1 Harr. Pr. 101. 303.) in setting forth what is not necessary to be set forth, as where the pleading'^ are stuffed with long recitals, or with long digressions of matters of fact which are totally immaterial. An .answer, or a bill, ought not, ordinarily, to set forth deeds in kcec Verba; and if the pleader sets forth only so much thereof as is material to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McKim v. MasonHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1849