Matthews v. Beach
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action for a libel, and that the points argued, and the decision of the court, may be properly understood, it will be necessary to give the pleadings. They are as follow : City and County of New York, ss.
Read the full summary
This was an action for a libel, and that the points argued, and the decision of the court, may be properly understood, it will be necessary to give the pleadings. They are as follow : City and County of New York, ss. The complaint of Emery- Matthews against Moses S. Beach and Alfred' E. Beach, respectfully showeth, that- on the 27th- day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, at the city of New York, the said Moses S. Beach, and Alfred E. Beach, under the name and firm of Beach Brothers, were the editors, printers, and proprietors of a certain public newspaper, printed and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Oakley, Ch. J.
We cannot say that the demurrer is too broad. It is true, it commences by stating that the plaintiff demurs to the answer, which, unexplained, means the whole answer ; but it immediately specifies the parts of the *264answer to which exception is taken, and to which, as constituting an insufficient defence, the demurrer is meant to apply. The specification corrects the previous error, and were it otherwise, the mistake is purely formal, and as such, is amendable of course, in any stage of the proceedings.
Confining the demurrer to the new matter in the answer, the judge,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dolloway v. TurrillNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Gardner v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by13 opinions
- Moore v. . FrancisNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Julian v. American Business Consultants, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Thompson v. . HalbertNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Woodruff v. . Bradstreet Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Brown v. Du FreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.