Payne v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.

Third Circuit

Payne v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.

153 F. 176, 82 C.C.A. 350, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1907

DocketNo. 22

StatusPublished

This text of 153 F. 176 (Payne v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Payne v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 153 F. 176, 82 C.C.A. 350, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400 (3d Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

This assignment of errors presents no question requiring our decision which may not briefly be disposed of. The specification respecting the overruling of the demurrer to the declaration does not appear to he seriously insisted upon. It could not be maintained.

The learned judge was clearly right in holding that the second and third pleas were not specific enough. He properly exercised his discretion in striking them out, and as the fraud to which they referred was not again and more specifically pleaded, it is manifest that no error was committed in refusing to permit the defendant to irregularly introduce his supposed defense by cross-examining a witness of the plaintiff “with respect to the question of fraud, under the plea of general issue, which was the only plea of record.”

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

This assignment of errors presents no question requiring our decision which may not briefly be disposed of. The specification respecting the overruling of the demurrer to the declaration does not appear to he seriously insisted upon. It could not be maintained.

The learned judge was clearly right in holding that the second and third pleas were not specific enough. He properly exercised his discretion in striking them out, and as the fraud to which they referred was not again and more specifically pleaded, it is manifest that no error was committed in refusing to permit the defendant to irregularly introduce his supposed defense by cross-examining a witness of the plaintiff “with respect to the question of fraud, under the plea of general issue, which was the only plea of record.”

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 F. 176, 82 C.C.A. 350, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-knickerbocker-trust-co-ca3-1907.