De Galindez v. Ennis

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

De Galindez v. Ennis

149 F. 911, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 5057

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 26, 1906

DocketNo. 44

StatusPublished

This text of 149 F. 911 (De Galindez v. Ennis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Galindez v. Ennis, 149 F. 911, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 5057 (circtedpa 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McÍRHERSON, District -Judge.

I have no doubt that the statement would have been more satisfactory if it had been drawn by a member of the Pennsylvania bar-. As it stands, it certainly leaves something to be desired; but, making due allowance for the evident unfamiliarity of the draftsman with the requirements of our practice, I am inclined to think it contains a fairly intelligible account of the claim to which the defendant is called upon to reply. There are some items, .however, of which he may be entitled to ask for more precise details,, by demanding, either a more specific statement, or a bill of particulars.

So far as the defense of. the statute of limitations is concerned, it is obvious that no harm can be. done by postponing decision until the proofs have been put in.

.. The demurrer is overruled, and the defendant is directed to file an affidavit of defense-.within 20 days.

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

J. B. McÍRHERSON, District -Judge.

I have no doubt that the statement would have been more satisfactory if it had been drawn by a member of the Pennsylvania bar-. As it stands, it certainly leaves something to be desired; but, making due allowance for the evident unfamiliarity of the draftsman with the requirements of our practice, I am inclined to think it contains a fairly intelligible account of the claim to which the defendant is called upon to reply. There are some items, .however, of which he may be entitled to ask for more precise details,, by demanding, either a more specific statement, or a bill of particulars.

So far as the defense of. the statute of limitations is concerned, it is obvious that no harm can be. done by postponing decision until the proofs have been put in.

.. The demurrer is overruled, and the defendant is directed to file an affidavit of defense-.within 20 days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 F. 911, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 5057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-galindez-v-ennis-circtedpa-1906.