Pease v. McKusick
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
A STATEMENT of the pleadings in this case will be found in the opinion of the Court, and need not be repeated. contending that the rejoinder was a departure, because it introduced new matter not before stated, or in any manner referred to. 2 Wils. 96; l Wils. 122 ; 4 T. R. 504; 2 Saund. 84, note 1; 14 Johns. R. 132 ; 1 Chitty’s PI. 140 ; 20 Johns. R. 153 ; 6 Mass. R. 57 ; 16 Mass.
Read the full summary
A STATEMENT of the pleadings in this case will be found in the opinion of the Court, and need not be repeated. contending that the rejoinder was a departure, because it introduced new matter not before stated, or in any manner referred to. 2 Wils. 96; l Wils. 122 ; 4 T. R. 504; 2 Saund. 84, note 1; 14 Johns. R. 132 ; 1 Chitty’s PI. 140 ; 20 Johns. R. 153 ; 6 Mass. R. 57 ; 16 Mass. R. 1; Co. Lit. 304, (a.) But without regard to the mode of pleading, the facts stated by the plaintiff are not sufficient in substance to enable him to prevail, on general demurrer. Rev. St. c. 119, § 33 ; 8 Pick.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Tenney J.
Noah McKusick, who was summoned as trustee of the principal defendant, made a disclosure, which the plaintiff’s counsel do not contend should charge him. The plaintiff then files an allegation, without stating any specific facts, that the conveyance of certain chattels, therein mentioned, by Thurston P. McKusick to Noah McKusick was made in fraud of the plaintiff’s rights as a creditor, and therefore void. The trustee replies, that the chattels mentioned by the plaintiff in his allegation are identical with those referred to in his disclosure, and that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Larned v. BruceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tillis v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of Florida · 1903