D'Arcy v. Steuer

60 N.E. 405, 179 Mass. 40, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 513
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 22, 1901·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

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

D'Arcy v. Steuer, 60 N.E. 405, 179 Mass. 40, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 513 (Mass. 1901).

60 N.E. 405 (D'Arcy v. Steuer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dunbar-Laporte Motor Co. v. Desrocher
142 N.E. 57 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Winton Motor Carriage Co. v. Broadway Automobile Co.
118 P. 817 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
Wylie v. Marinofsky
88 N.E. 448 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Frisch v. Wells
86 N.E. 775 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Pan-American Amusement Co. v. Maguire
142 F. 126 (First Circuit, 1905)