Willson v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Boulder District Court. — Hon. James E. G abrigues, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gabbert
The motion of the C. & S. and D. B. & W. for judgment on the pleadings, or more properly speaking, as the record shows, for judgment by default for want of a reply, was based upon the ground that the respective replications of plaintiff, to the effect that all new mat*313ter in tlie answers of these defendants was denied, did not pnt in issue the affirmative defenses so pleaded. Such a denial is poor pleading and vulnerable to a motion to make more specific, — but as the replications were not so assailed they were sufficient to put in issue the affirmative averments of the respective answers to…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. BarronSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Heeg v. . LichtNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Chicago & Erie Railroad v. MeechIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Pennsylvania Co. v. EllettIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Colorado Mortgage & Investment Co. v. ReesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1895
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pope v. Edward M. Rude Carrier Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1953
- Liber v. FlorSupreme Court of Colorado · 1966
- Moore v. Standard Paint & Glass Co. of PuebloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
- Denver Tramway Corp. v. GentrySupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
- Combs v. Standard Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.