Smith v. Lasher
New York Court of Chancery
FIVE exceptions were taken to the answer, for insufiiciency, which were referred to the master, who reported that tlie first, second, third, and fifth exceptions were not well taken. The plaintiff excepted to the master’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
As to the first exception, the answer to certain specific facts charged in the bill, states, “ That it-may be true, &c. but that they have no knowledge of, and are strangers to, the foregoing facts, and leave the plaintiff to prove the same.” This is not a sufficient answer to facts which are not in the defendants’ own knowledge. A defendant ought to answer according to his information and belief, if he has any information on the subject distinct from the bill. This was the rule of pleading stated in Woods v. Morrell ; (1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 107.) and the authorities there referred…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Woods v. MorrellNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
- Morris & Mowatt v. ParkerNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
3Cited by4 opinions
- Grady v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Utica Insurance v. LynchNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Foster v. SwaseyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1846
- Miles v. MilesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853