Houghton v. Townsend
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to answer, prior to the amendments of 1852, to the Code. The action is for services rendered as attorney and counsel, and judgment for five hundred dollars is demanded. The defendants, among other defences, stated as a defence, that they, at divers times, paid to the plaintiff, for and on account of the services mentioned in the complaint, divers sums of money amounting in all to. fifty dollars. This defence was separately stated.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to answer, prior to the amendments of 1852, to the Code. The action is for services rendered as attorney and counsel, and judgment for five hundred dollars is demanded. The defendants, among other defences, stated as a defence, that they, at divers times, paid to the plaintiff, for and on account of the services mentioned in the complaint, divers sums of money amounting in all to. fifty dollars. This defence was separately stated. The plaintiff demurred to it for insufficiency. At special term judgment was ordered for the defendant with leave to the plaintiff to reply, or to apply to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court—Marvin, P. J.
By the system of pleading superseded by the Code, a plea must have answered the whole count or it was bad; in other words, a special plea must have contained facts which constituted a bar to the action. Boyd agt. Weeks, (5 Hill, 393;) Root agt. Woodruff) (6 Hill, 418.)
The plaintiff, in the present case, insists that this rule of pleading still exists; and that the answer which contains a statement of new matter must contain a statement of facts which will bar the plaintiff’s action.
The question arises mainly under the second subdivision of section 149; the answer…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Curran v. CurranIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Skains v. BarnesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Columbia National Bank v. Western Iron & Steel Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1896
- Packwood v. ClarkU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1874