McPherson & Crane v. Melhinch
New York Supreme Court
Replevin. The declaration contained two counts. The defendant pleaded to both counts, 1, noncepit, and 2, property in a stranger $ and then, as to each count, he made cognizance as bailiff of E. A. Wetmore, and acknowledged .the taking asa distress for rent in arrear, in the usual form..
Read the full summary
Replevin. The declaration contained two counts. The defendant pleaded to both counts, 1, noncepit, and 2, property in a stranger $ and then, as to each count, he made cognizance as bailiff of E. A. Wetmore, and acknowledged .the taking asa distress for rent in arrear, in the usual form.. He then pleaded the same matter—-a distress for rent in arrear—several times over to each count, in the form of pleas in bar, concluding with a prayer of judgment, and for a return of the goods. These pleadings differ from a cognizance only in their commencement, which is in the form of a plea in bar, instead…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, J.
In replevin, the plaintiff can only have one replication to a plea in bar" by the defendant, but to an •avowry or cognizance he may plead as many several matters as he shall deem necessary for his defence. Calvin v. La Farge, 6 Wendell, 505 . 2 R. S. 529, & 45. In the pleadings in question. *672the defendant, as the bailiff of Wetmore, justifies the taking of the goods as a distress for rent; but instead of pursuing the usual form of a cognizance, he has, in the introductory clause,.followed the usual form of a plea in bar, and by this departure from the precedents seeks…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Calvin v. La FargeNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hopkins v. BurneySupreme Court of Florida · 1848