Quigley v. Merritt

Supreme Court of Iowa

Quigley v. Merritt

11 Iowa 147

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedOctober 6, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 11 Iowa 147 (Quigley v. Merritt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quigley v. Merritt, 11 Iowa 147 (iowa 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Wright, J.

This judgment must be affirmed. If it be granted that in some cases that may be supposed a general denial of an adversary’s pleadings might not be good on demurrer, or that a motion for a more specific denial might prevail, yet in the case before us we are,not prepared to say that the denial was so fatally defective as that the petition was to be taken as true.

The pleas .in the nature of pleas “in confession and avoidance” did not destroy the force and effect of the preceding general denial. The burden of proof was still on the plaintiff. Grash v. Sater et al, 6 Iowa 301.¹

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wright, J.

This judgment must be affirmed. If it be granted that in some cases that may be supposed a general denial of an adversary’s pleadings might not be good on demurrer, or that a motion for a more specific denial might prevail, yet in the case before us we are,not prepared to say that the denial was so fatally defective as that the petition was to be taken as true.

The pleas .in the nature of pleas “in confession and avoidance” did not destroy the force and effect of the preceding general denial. The burden of proof was still on the plaintiff. Grash v. Sater et al, 6 Iowa 301.¹

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Iowa 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quigley-v-merritt-iowa-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack