Ruckman v. Ridgefield Park Railroad
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Ou motion to strike out the second replication to the second plea of the defendant. The action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant the amount of his subscription for seventy-five shares of the capital stock of plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Ou motion to strike out the second replication to the second plea of the defendant. The action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant the amount of his subscription for seventy-five shares of the capital stock of plaintiffs. The defendant, in his second plea, set out that, at the time of making such subscription, the plaintiffs, by their agent, duly authorized, promised in writing that the defendant was and should be at liberty (free of costs) to cancel his said subscription at any time he might elect, and that, in consideration of such written promise, he signed,the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Scudder, J.
This is an action of assumpsit. It was strongly argued in Gibbons v. Moltham, 6 M. & G. 692, that the replication de injuria is inapplicable to actions ex contractu. But, upon the authority of Isaac v. Farrar, 1 M. & W. 65, and other cases cited, the court intimated a contrary opinion, and the position was abandoned. The principle upon which this replication is admitted, and its proper office in pleading is fully discussed in Craft v. Boite, 1 Saund. 244 c. note (7); and White v. Stubbs, 2 Ib. 295, notes.
As there stated, formerly the general…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Griswold v. SedgwickNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Gleason v. M'VickarNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Lytle v. Lee & RugglesNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Tubbs v. Caswell & PettitCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
- Coburn v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1830
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.