Brewster v. Hall
New York Supreme Court
In assumpsit. J. Dickson, for the plaintiffs, moved to set aside three special pleas interposed by the defendants, rpjje fjrs{ was a piea 0f accord and satisfaction, in nearly the r ’ _ J eommon form.
Read the full summary
In assumpsit. J. Dickson, for the plaintiffs, moved to set aside three special pleas interposed by the defendants, rpjje fjrs{ was a piea 0f accord and satisfaction, in nearly the r ’ _ J eommon form. The second was, that the parties had sta-an account, when a balance was found for the plaintiffs of $700,99; for which the defendants gave their bond, . , , . as security; that the plaintms had recovered judgment thereon 5 &at one of the defendants paid the judgment in full, &c. These facts were pleaded with great particularity of day, place and circumstance. The third plea was a veiT termal…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Savage, Ch. J.
The defendants have plead-
ed a series of sham pleas, without a pretence of merits in their cause, or that the pleas are true in a single particular; and demurrers growing out of them are now gravely placed upon the calendar of the present .term for argument. The question is, whether we are bound to sit in judgment upon such a case, or summarily dispose of it upon non-enumerated motion. This subject has lately been twice before us. First in Steward v. Hotchkiss, (2 Cowen’s Rep. 634,) when we set aside the plea, it being false in fact; and of somewhat a doubtful…
2Cited by9 opinions
- The People v. . McCumberNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Nichols v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Hadden v. New York Silk Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1860
- Morton v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
- Conklin v. VandervoortNew York Supreme Court · 1853
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.