Swift v. Kingsley
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered at a special term, upon the report of a referee. The complaint charged that on the 27th December, 1854, the defendant Kingsley entered into a contract with the state of Kew York, to construct all the culverts on sections 285 to 298 inclusive, on the Erie canal enlargement.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered at a special term, upon the report of a referee. The complaint charged that on the 27th December, 1854, the defendant Kingsley entered into a contract with the state of Kew York, to construct all the culverts on sections 285 to 298 inclusive, on the Erie canal enlargement. That on the 8th of January, 1855, the defendants executed a bond to the said state, in pursuance of the provisions of an act passed April 10th, 1850, entitled “ an act to secure the payment of wages to laborers employed on the canals and other public works of this state and which is set out at…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J.
This case was obviously tried upon a mistaken theory. There being no general denial of the allegations of the complaint, it was held that the plaintiff was not, under the pleadings, bound to make any proof, and that he could recover upon the implied admissions made in one of several answers. The allegations of the complaint not specifically denied are, it is true, to be regarded as admitted. (Code, $ 168.) But where there are several answers, an admission made in one is not available against the others. Each answer must stand by itself as a distinct defense,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Butler v. KaulbackSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Siter v. JewettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Hammond v. EarleNew York Supreme Court · 1880
- Hoes v. NageleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. WarrenWyoming Supreme Court · 1885