Friedburg v. Knight

14 R.I. 585, 1884 R.I. LEXIS 66

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: December 29, 1884
• Status: Published

Opinion

Pee, CuEIAM.

We think the replications are bad. If the plaintiff wishes to set up fraud as an answer to the pleas of a release and an acquittance, he ought to set forth the acts by which the alleged fraud was perpetrated, so that the court can judge whether they amount to fraud or not, and, if they amount to fraud, so that the defendant can know definitely what he is to take issue upon. See cases cited for defendants. 1

Demurrer sustained.

1 J’Anson v. Stuart, 1 Term Rep. 748, 752, 753; Wallingford v. Mutual Society, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 685, 697, 701, 709; Service v. Heermance, 2 Johns. Rep. 96; Brereton v. Howe, 1 Denio, 75; Weld v. Locke, 18 N. H. 141; Bell v. Lamprey, 52 N. H. 41; Sterling v. Mercantile Insurance Co. 32 Pa. St. 75; Hopkins v. Woodward, 75 Ill. 62; Cole v. Joliet Opera House, 79 Ill. 96; Darnell v. Rowland, 30 Ind. 342; Hale v. West Virginia Co. 11 W. Va. 229; Capuro v. Builders’ Insurance Co. 39 Cal. 123; Hynson v. Dunn, 5 Ark. 395; Abraham v. Gray, 14 Ark. 301; Giles v. Williams, 3 Ala. 316.