Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 How. Pr. 266

Reilay v. Thomas

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1854

New York Supreme Court · decided 1854-10-15

Complaint. ' The complaint of the above-named plaintiffs against the above-named defendants in this action, respectfully states and shows to this court. lst„ That the plaintiffs now are, and, for some time past, have been, co-partners in trade, doing business under the name and style of “ Reilay & Wood.” 2d. That on or about the 10th day of January, 1854, at the city of New-York, the above-named defendant Ansel Thomas, at the city of New-York, duly made his promissory note,…

Decided 1854-10-15

Roosevelt, Justice.

¶1The plaintiffs’ law, in this case, on the merits, may be perfectly good, but he has not availed himself of it in the proper manner. The Code, unless in very clear cases of the fitness of that mode of procedure, discourages, and for the best of reasons, as shown by Mr. Justice Harris, (9 How. Pr. R. 143,) the usually dilatory pleading by demurrer. To a mere answer—an answer setting up no counter-claim, but merely defensive—such as alleged payment of a note before its transfer—no reply or demurrer is necessary, and none therefore is admissible. The cause, without further written pleadings, should be immediately set down for trial on all the issues: and the same judge, whether they be questions of law or questions of fact, and with or without a jury, as the case may be, disposes, at one time and in one hearing, of the whole controversy.

¶2The plaintiffs’ demurrer, therefore, is irregular, and must be set aside with $10 costs of the motion, to abide the final event.

/11/howpr/266 · .json · Public domain