Russell v. Clapp
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to answer. The complaint stated that the plaintiff, on the 5th day of January, 1847, recovered against the defendant in a court of common pleas held at Boston, Massachusetts, a judgment for $4031, which remained unreversed and unsatisfied ; and the plaintiff demanded judgment for the amount of such judgment, with interest.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to answer. The complaint stated that the plaintiff, on the 5th day of January, 1847, recovered against the defendant in a court of common pleas held at Boston, Massachusetts, a judgment for $4031, which remained unreversed and unsatisfied ; and the plaintiff demanded judgment for the amount of such judgment, with interest. The defendant put in an answer alledging “ that the plaintiff who prosecutes this action is not the real party in interest therein, nor is he an executor or administrator, or a trustee of an express trust, or a person expressly authorized by statute to sue without…
1Opinion of the CourtHarris, J.
The radical change which the code has made in the rales by which the sufficiency of a pleading is to be determined, is well stated by Mr. Justice Sill, in Glenny v. Hitchnis, (4 How. Pr. Rep. 98.) Under the present system it is intended tO' confine the pleadings to a simple statement of facts. Neither the evidence by which the facts alledged are to be established, *483nor the legal conclusions to be derived from such facts, can properly be stated. A complaint is sufficient if it contains a simple statement of facts which, if proved, will entitle the plaintiff to judgment. The answer, in like…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Glenny v. HortonNew York Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cottle v. ColeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Dye v. DyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Seeley v. EngellNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Wedderspoon v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Cary v. Western Union Telephone Co.New York Supreme Court · 1888
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.