Ritchie v. Garrison
The Superior Court of New York City
Demurrer to part of an answer. The complaint was as follows: That at the several and respective times thereafter mentioned, the plaintiffs were, and now are, residents of the province of Canada, one of the colonial possessions of the kingdom of Great Britain, of which they are and always have been subjects.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to part of an answer. The complaint was as follows: That at the several and respective times thereafter mentioned, the plaintiffs were, and now are, residents of the province of Canada, one of the colonial possessions of the kingdom of Great Britain, of which they are and always have been subjects. That on the 21st of February, 1838, the plaintiffs recovered, in the Court of Queen’s Bench, holden at Toronto, in the province of Upper Canada, within the jurisdiction of such court, a judgment for the sum of £282 5s. 1±d. current money, by reason of the non-performance of certain…
1Opinion of the CourtHoffman, J.
—The demurrer is to be tested by the complaint, and the portion of the answer demurred to. I understand the rule to be, that upon a demurrer to one' distinct defence sepa*248rately set up, no resort can be had to other portions of the answer, unless, perhaps, when by a distinct reference they are made part of that demurred to.
The clause of the act of Congress of 1841, relied upon to give force to the present • discharge, is as follows: “ And such discharge and certificate, when duly granted, shall in all courts of justice be deemed a full and complete discharge of all debts, contracts, and other…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- M'millan v. M'neillSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Penniman v. MeigsNew York Supreme Court · 1812
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sbarboro v. Health DepartmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898