Bradley v. Addicks

Superior Court of Delaware

Bradley v. Addicks

76 A. 318, 24 Del. 319, 1 Boyce 319, 1910 Del. LEXIS 38

DecidedApril 12, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A. 318 (Bradley v. Addicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. Addicks, 76 A. 318, 24 Del. 319, 1 Boyce 319, 1910 Del. LEXIS 38 (Del. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Boyce, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of assumpsit on the common counts. A bill of particulars was required and filed.

After the bill of particulars had been filed the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, among other pleas, without drawing the said plea out. The plaintiff did not file a general, but a special, replication to the plea of the statute, to the effect that the said several causes of action in the declaration mentioned and each of them did accrue within six years next before the said action was brought. The defendant demurred to the replication.

The plea of the statute in an action of assumpsit on the common counts amounts simply to an averment that the promise was not made within three years, and a general replication to it, as was contended, is a reply that the promise was made within three years, but that is not this case. The plaintiff has replied to the plea of the statute by a special replication, averring that the cause of action accrued within six years next before the commencement of the action. The special replication is, we think, proper and sufficient. (1 Woolley on Del. Prac., Sec. 534; McDermott vs. McCormick, 4 Harr. 543.)

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

Boyce, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of assumpsit on the common counts. A bill of particulars was required and filed.

After the bill of particulars had been filed the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, among other pleas, without drawing the said plea out. The plaintiff did not file a general, but a special, replication to the plea of the statute, to the effect that the said several causes of action in the declaration mentioned and each of them did accrue within six years next before the said action was brought. The defendant demurred to the replication.

The plea of the statute in an action of assumpsit on the common counts amounts simply to an averment that the promise was not made within three years, and a general replication to it, as was contended, is a reply that the promise was made within three years, but that is not this case. The plaintiff has replied to the plea of the statute by a special replication, averring that the cause of action accrued within six years next before the commencement of the action. The special replication is, we think, proper and sufficient. (1 Woolley on Del. Prac., Sec. 534; McDermott vs. McCormick, 4 Harr. 543.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A. 318, 24 Del. 319, 1 Boyce 319, 1910 Del. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-addicks-delsuperct-1910.