King v. Ray
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal, by th,e complainants, from an order of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, overruling a master’s rep'ort, which had allowed several exceptions, for insufficiency, to the answer of Hensdil, one of the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, by th,e complainants, from an order of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, overruling a master’s rep'ort, which had allowed several exceptions, for insufficiency, to the answer of Hensdil, one of the defendants. The object of the bill was to obtain relief against two usurious notes, the one given by the complainants to the defendant Ray, and the other given by Ray to them or their order,- and endorsed by them to the defendant Hensdil, upon an usurious consideration. The matters charged in the bill, as to which these exceptions for insufficiency related, were…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The general principle is well settled, that as to matters which are not within the defendant’s own knowledge he must answer both as to his information and belief. True, it is not necessary that the defendant should say, in so many words, that he has no knowledge, information or belief in relation to the charge contained in the bill; but it is sufficient if he uses any other expression in the answer which necessarily amounts to the same thing, in substance. Thus in Jones v. Wiggins, (2 Young & Jer. Exc. Rep. 385,) where the defendant stated that he was wholly ignorant of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Burke v. McLaughlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Costello v. TaskerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Shearman v. New York Central MillsNew York Supreme Court · 1855