Childs v. Hart
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to declaration. The declaration was in replevin in the cepit. It stated that George Hart was summoned to answer Jonathan Childs of a plea wherefore he took one piano then in the house occupied by Washington Gibbons, in the city of Rochester, of the said Jonathan Childs, and unjustly detained the same against sureties and pledges, until, &c. and thereupon the said Jonathan Childs complained, for that the said George Hart, the defendant, on the first day of April,…
Read the full summary
Demurrer to declaration. The declaration was in replevin in the cepit. It stated that George Hart was summoned to answer Jonathan Childs of a plea wherefore he took one piano then in the house occupied by Washington Gibbons, in the city of Rochester, of the said Jonathan Childs, and unjustly detained the same against sureties and pledges, until, &c. and thereupon the said Jonathan Childs complained, for that the said George Hart, the defendant, on the first day of April, 1848, at the city of Rochester, in a certain dwelling house then occupied by one Washington Gibbons, took one piano of him…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Welles, J.
It is supposed that the precise question involved in this demurrer was decided against the present plaintiff in the case of Reynolds v. Lounsbury, (6 Hill, 534.) In that case the declaration was similar in its form to the present. The objection was not taken until after the defendant had pleaded over, and the cause had been moved on to trial. The case came before the late supreme court on a writ of error, and the objection was there overruled, upon the ground that the defendant should have demurred to the declaration, and that although the defect appeared upon the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tell v. . BeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1868