Hollenbeck v. Clow
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out, &c. The action is for slander. The charge, as stated in the complaint, was that the plaintiff had stolen the defendant’s hay. The defendant first denied “ each and every allegation in the complaint.”
Read the full summary
Motion to strike out, &c. The action is for slander. The charge, as stated in the complaint, was that the plaintiff had stolen the defendant’s hay. The defendant first denied “ each and every allegation in the complaint.” The answer then proceeds as follows: “ And the said defendant further answering says, that all the words which were spoken or uttered by the defendant of, to, or concerning the said plaintiff, as set forth in the complaint, charging him, said plaintiff, with stealing, or taking hay, or that the plaintiff had stolen the defendant’s hay, were spoken and uttered by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
Under the former practice, the defendant might plead as many separate matters as he should think necessary to his defence, subject to the power of the court to compel him to elect by which plea he would abide in cases where he should plead inconsistent pleas. (2 R. S. 352; Graham’s Pr. 244.) But the Code contains, in terms, no such restriction upon the right of the defendant to interpose different defences. It declares that the defendant may set forth by answer as many defences as he may have. When, therefore, the court assumes to compel the defendant to elect between…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wood v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Hopper v. HopperNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
3Cited by8 opinions
- Seattle National Bank v. CarterWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Bell v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Murphy v. Russell & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Broderick v. HorvattNew York Supreme Court · 1933
- Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. WarrenWyoming Supreme Court · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.