Williams v. Kilpatrick
New York Supreme Court
Motion to require plaintiff to reply to new matter in answer. This action was brought by Ichabod T. Williams, Thomas Williams and Henry K. S. Williams, partners under the firm name of Ichabod T. Williams, against Walter F. Kilpatrick.
Read the full summary
Motion to require plaintiff to reply to new matter in answer. This action was brought by Ichabod T. Williams, Thomas Williams and Henry K. S. Williams, partners under the firm name of Ichabod T. Williams, against Walter F. Kilpatrick. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant and one William McConnell, who died before the commencement of this action, were general partners doing business in the City of New York, under the firm name of William McConnell & Co. For a first cause of action they alleged that on August 9th, 1887, the firm made its promissory note, in writing, to them for…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
Defendant is sued as a general partner. This is denied by the answer, and by way of avoidance defendant further alleges that he was a special partner under a limited partnership, formed as provided by statute. There *63is an implied admission of liability, which is avoided by the setting forth of the necessary statutory steps taken by •defendant to constitute himself a special partner, and thus avoid liability. Where a violation of a statute is the basis of a complaint, in analogous cases, the specific grounds should be pointed out. In this case, therefore, a reply is proper, in order to raise a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Olsen v. Singer Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- N. Y., Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1887