Rayner & Hope v. Dyett
New York Supreme Court
AFTER this cause was at issue, the defendant obtained a discharge under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases, which he plead puis darrein continuance.
Read the full summary
AFTER this cause was at issue, the defendant obtained a discharge under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases, which he plead puis darrein continuance. The Pontiffs made an entry on the roll, confessing the plea and praying judgment of their damages to be levied of the goods, &c. of the defendant, and not upon his person, and served a C0PJ °f the same upon the defendant, together with a notice 0f assessment of damages by the clerk, considering the plea puis darrein as a waiver of the pleas before put in; and they Procee^e^ an(t entered a rule for interlocutory judgment,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sutherland, J.
As a general rule, it is undoubtedly true that a plea puis darrein continuance is a waiver of the pleas before put in; that rule, however, proceeds on the hypothesis that the party assumes a new ground of defence to the action, abandoning the defence before relied on. The defendant here had denied the plaintiffs’ right of recovery; subsequently he obtained a discharge, exempting his body from imprisonment; he plead that fact, so that if judgment did pass against him, his body should not be subject to imprisonment. This was not an admission of the plaintiffs’ right…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Holyoke v. . AdamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Kimball & Kiniston v. HuntingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Murphy v. Plankinton BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Friedlander v. Pugh, Slocomb & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Slauson v. EnglehartNew York Supreme Court · 1861
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.