Seward v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
This is an action against the maker and endorser of a promissory note. The complaint is in the usual form. The answer professes to deny specifically each and every material allegation of the complaint, but does not particularize any allegation. The plaintiff moves to strike it out as a, sham and irrelevant answer, or defence, under the 152d section of the Code of 1851.
1Opinion of the Court
S. B. Strong, Justice.
Bythe 149th section of that Code an answer must contain a specific denial of each material allegation of the complaint controverted by the defendant. It-has been contended in behalf of the defendant in this case, that a denial in the words of the statute is sufficient. It might have been so under the corresponding section of the Code of 1849, where the word “ general” was used to qualify the denial. It was so difficult, however, to ascertain what was meant by the terms general denial of each allegation, that the decisions upon that provision of the Code, while it was in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Clark v. Jeffersonville RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Nix v. GilmerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Ellison v. BranstratorIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909
- Clough v. MurrayThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
- Rock Spring Coal Co. v. Salt Lake Sanitarium Ass'nUtah Supreme Court · 1891