Lambert v. Lambert

52 Me. 544
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 Me. 544 (Lambert v. Lambert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lambert v. Lambert, 52 Me. 544 (Me. 1864).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn by

Walton, J.

It sometimes happens that a defendant in equity suits has matter of défence which can be made available only by a cross bill. Matter of defence arising after the cause is at issue, and which, in suits at law, would furnish matter for a plea puis darrein continuance, can be made available in this way only. The cross bill in this case is of this description. It sets up a ground of defence happening [545]*545after the former pleadings were filed; namely, an assignment by the plaintiff of all his interest in the subject matter of the suit. Such an assignment, although brought to the knowledge of the Court by a cross bill, is a valid defence to the original bill. Instead of answering this bill as he ought, the plaintiff demurs, assigning for cause of demurrer want of equity. But want of equity is no defence to a cross bill brought forward by way of defence. (Story’s Equity Pleadings, § 628.) The demurrer, therefore, should be overruled. But, in equity, the overruling of a demurrer is never followed by a decree making a final disposition of the case ; the order is that the party demurring answer further. The entry in this case should be : —

" Demurrer to cross bill overruled further answer required.”

Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Davis and Barrows, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Armstrong v. Mayer
95 N.W. 51 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Me. 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-lambert-me-1864.