Miller v. Merrill

New York Supreme Court

Miller v. Merrill

14 Johns. 348

DecidedOctober 15, 1817

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Johns. 348 (Miller v. Merrill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Merrill, 14 Johns. 348 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question is, as to the sufficiency of the defendant’s first plea. It is one entire plea to the whole declaration. As it respects the count for a libel, the plea of non uccrevit infra duos annos, is bad, for the statute of limitations for an action for a libel is six years. As an answer to the other counts for slander, the plea is good. But the rule is, that if an entire plea is bad in part, it is bad for the whole. [Com. Dig. Plead, (E. 36,) 1 Sound. 337. n. 1. 3 Term Rep. 376. 1 Chitty,s PL 523.] The plaintiff, therefore, must have judgment.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam.

The only question is, as to the sufficiency of the defendant’s first plea. It is one entire plea to the whole declaration. As it respects the count for a libel, the plea of non uccrevit infra duos annos, is bad, for the statute of limitations for an action for a libel is six years. As an answer to the other counts for slander, the plea is good. But the rule is, that if an entire plea is bad in part, it is bad for the whole. [Com. Dig. Plead, (E. 36,) 1 Sound. 337. n. 1. 3 Term Rep. 376. 1 Chitty,s PL 523.] The plaintiff, therefore, must have judgment.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Johns. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-merrill-nysupct-1817.