Strong v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
TRESPASS for breaking the plaintiffs’ close at Islip, in the couniy of Suffolk, to which the defendant pleaded, 1st. That the locus in quo was the freehold of the trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of the town of Huntington, by whose command he entered. 2d. That the trustees being seised in fee of the locus in quo, demised to him for a year.
Read the full summary
TRESPASS for breaking the plaintiffs’ close at Islip, in the couniy of Suffolk, to which the defendant pleaded, 1st. That the locus in quo was the freehold of the trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of the town of Huntington, by whose command he entered. 2d. That the trustees being seised in fee of the locus in quo, demised to him for a year. Replication to the first plea, that the close was the freehold of William Nicoll, in the possession of the plaintiffs as guardians, and traversing the freehold of the trustees. To the second plea, that at the time when the trespass was committed,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per curiam, delivered by
Thompson J.
It is undoubtedly a sound and established rule in pleading, that a traverse is not to be multifarious, but to a single point. This however, does not determine what shall be deemed a single point within that rule. It cannot be a single fact. The rule I think well illustrated and exemplified in the case of Robinson v. Raley, 1 Burr. 316. That was also an action of trespass, and a number of pleas interposed. The replication traverses one of the pleas in the following manner. “ With-" out that, that the cattle were the defendant’s own cattle, and " that they…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Briggs v. DorrNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Connelly v. PierceNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- United States v. JacobySuperior Court of Delaware · 1905
- Patcher v. SpragueNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Potter v. TitcombSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1833
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.