Reimer v. Doerge

61 How. Pr. 142
CourtNew York Marine Court
DecidedJune 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 How. Pr. 142 (Reimer v. Doerge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Marine Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reimer v. Doerge, 61 How. Pr. 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1881).

Opinion

McAdam, J.

There are authorities holding that a defendant may set up in his answer any matter arising before it is put in, whether it occurred after suit brought or not ( Willis agt. Clipp, 9 How. Pr., 568; Carpenter agt. Bell, 19 Abb. Pr., 263; Bennett agt. Annesly, 27 How. Pr., 184; Beebe agt. Dowd, 22 Barb., 255). That although not a plea in bar, it is an answer to the further1 maintenance of the suit, and, if true and sufficient, is equally effective in preventing a recovery (Carpenter agt. Bell, supra). The plaintiff cannot now object to the regularity of the plea, after having accepted it by going [144]*144to trial upon the issue presented by it. If it was irregular for any reason, the remedy against it was one of practice to be determined "upon motion before the trial. The plaintiff elected to try the issue, and upon the trial the plea of payment as pleaded was fully proved. It follows, therefore, that there must he judgment for the defendants, with costs.

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

Related

Gallison & Hobron Co. v. Rawak
3 N.Y.S. 802 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1889)
Smith v. Baum
67 How. Pr. 267 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 How. Pr. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reimer-v-doerge-nymarct-1881.