D'Arcy v. Steuer
This text of 60 N.E. 405 (D'Arcy v. Steuer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
An answer in the form of a general denial long has been sanctioned under our practice act. Boston Relief & Submarine Co. v. Burnett, 1 Allen, 410. It is permissible in replevin, as in other personal actions, and puts in issue the plaintiff’s right of possession. Spooner v. Cummings, 151 Mass. 313. In other words it is broader than the old plea non eepit, and dispenses with the necessity of an avowry or cognizance in order to justify a judgment for a return. See Bartlett v. Brickett, 98 Mass. 521; Pub. Sts. c. 184, § 13. The practice in many other States under statutes would seem to be more or less like ours. Fleet v. Lockwood, 17 Conn. 233, 243. Holliday v. McKinne, 22 Fla. 153, 158. Conner v. Comstock, 17 Ind. 90, 92, 93. King v. Ramsay, 13 Ill. 619, 628. Bates v. Buchanan, 2 Bush, 117.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 N.E. 405, 179 Mass. 40, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darcy-v-steuer-mass-1901.