Darling v. Chapman

14 Mass. 101
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1817·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Wilde, J.

This is an action brought by the assignee of the mortgagee against the mortgagor ; and the first question to be determined is, whether the rejoinder of the tenants, in the first set of pleadings, be well pleaded. [Here the judge recited the pleadings.] And whether * this rejoinder be a de[92]*92parture from the bar or not, depends on the construction to be given to the rejoinder, as to the waiving of the demand.

If we are to understand that this is alleged to have been by the mutual consent of the parties, then the rejoinder is free from objection. For if the matter in the rejoinder fortifies the bar, it is no departure. As in trespass for taking a horse, if the defendant justify for a distress damage feasant, the plaintiff may reply that the defendant afterwards used the horse, which shows that he was a trespasser ah initia.

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

Darling v. Chapman, 14 Mass. 101 (Mass. 1817).

14 Mass. 101 (Darling v. Chapman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weeks v. Baker
24 N.E. 905 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Hancock v. Franklin Insurance
114 Mass. 155 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)
Upham v. Brooks
28 F. Cas. 828 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1847)
Gray v. Jenks
10 F. Cas. 1021 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1825)