Didier v. Davison
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of the defendant for leave to plead double. The motion was founded upon an affidavit of the defendant that the bill was filed to recover a debt alleged to have been contracted in Baltimore, in 1815, and to have arisen out of certain commercial transactions, moneys advanced, and bills of exchange drawn and protested, during the year 1815 j and that the bill contained an allegation that the complainant had not been able to prosecute his…
Read the full summary
This was an application on the part of the defendant for leave to plead double. The motion was founded upon an affidavit of the defendant that the bill was filed to recover a debt alleged to have been contracted in Baltimore, in 1815, and to have arisen out of certain commercial transactions, moneys advanced, and bills of exchange drawn and protested, during the year 1815 j and that the bill contained an allegation that the complainant had not been able to prosecute his claim by reason of the continued absence of the defendant from this state. The defendant further stated, in his affidavit,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
In Wyatt’s Practical Register, and some other elementary treatises, it is said several matters in bar may be pleaded together. But it is very doubtful whether double pleading was ever allowed in chancery without the special leave of the court. And the statute authorizing the defendant in any action to plead as many matters as he shall think necessary for his defence does not apply to suits in this court. The word u action,” when *517used in the revised statutes, is intended to designate a proceeding in a court of law. But when the word “ suit" is used in reference to legal…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Syracuse Plaster Co. v. Agostini Bros. Building Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1938
- Newby v. Oregon Cent. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1870
- Miller & Lux v. RickeyDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1903
- Barnard & Lease Manufacturing Co. v. Monett Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899