Cassidy v. Farrell

109 Mass. 397
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

By the Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 20, “ the answer shall set forth in clear and precise terms each substantive fact intended to be relied upon in avoidance of the action.” Its plain meaning is, that these facts shall be averred positively. This is in accordance with all just ideas of pleading. The allegation of the answer in this case, that “ the defendant will offer evidence tending to prove that said items were spirituous and intoxicating liquors, sold, delivered and carted by the plaintiff to the defendant in violation of the laws of this Commonwealth,” is not an allegation that they were thus sold, and did not authorize the defendant to offer proof of such a fact. The ruling was clearly right.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Cassidy v. Farrell, 109 Mass. 397 (Mass. 1872).

109 Mass. 397 (Cassidy v. Farrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milliken v. Warwick
28 N.E.2d 224 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Lewis v. Russell
22 N.E.2d 606 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Whittingslow v. Thomas
129 N.E. 386 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
O'Brien v. Shea
95 N.E. 99 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Mountford v. Cunard Steamship Co.
88 N.E. 782 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Conner v. Baxter
99 N.W. 726 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Suit v. Woodhall
116 Mass. 547 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)