Baily v. Smith

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Baily v. Smith

1 Root 243

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 15, 1791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Root 243 (Baily v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baily v. Smith, 1 Root 243 (Colo. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment — The replication sufficient. Where no new matter is required, and the traverse goes to all the facts alleged in the plea; it is regular and well to conclude to the country. Eor in that case a perfect issue is formed. But where new matter is replied, or the traverse does not go to all the facts in the plea; the reply ought to conclude with a verification, to give the other party an opportunity to answer the new matter, or to demur for want of a sufficient traverse. Cowper, 575, Sayre, etc. v. Minns; 2 Burr. 772, Cornwallis v. Savery; 3 id. 1725.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment — The replication sufficient. Where no new matter is required, and the traverse goes to all the facts alleged in the plea; it is regular and well to conclude to the country. Eor in that case a perfect issue is formed. But where new matter is replied, or the traverse does not go to all the facts in the plea; the reply ought to conclude with a verification, to give the other party an opportunity to answer the new matter, or to demur for want of a sufficient traverse. Cowper, 575, Sayre, etc. v. Minns; 2 Burr. 772, Cornwallis v. Savery; 3 id. 1725.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baily-v-smith-conn-1791.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack