Ridings v. McMenamin

Superior Court of Delaware

Ridings v. McMenamin

39 A. 463, 17 Del. 15, 1 Penne. 15, 1897 Del. LEXIS 25

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedOctober 2, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A. 463 (Ridings v. McMenamin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ridings v. McMenamin, 39 A. 463, 17 Del. 15, 1 Penne. 15, 1897 Del. LEXIS 25 (Del. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Tore, C. J:—

It is settled in this court that an affidavit of defence alleging payment simply is sufficient. The rule is that snap judgments are never granted if there is a doubt. The court has recognized the word “ payment ” as being sufficient in affidavits of defence. It has a specific and clear meaning, which is that the claim has been paid.

Mr. Ward asked leave to note an exception to the above ruling. The court held that no exception would lie, as it was not a final judgment and no writ of error could be taken.

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

Tore, C. J:—

It is settled in this court that an affidavit of defence alleging payment simply is sufficient. The rule is that snap judgments are never granted if there is a doubt. The court has recognized the word “ payment ” as being sufficient in affidavits of defence. It has a specific and clear meaning, which is that the claim has been paid.

Mr. Ward asked leave to note an exception to the above ruling. The court held that no exception would lie, as it was not a final judgment and no writ of error could be taken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A. 463, 17 Del. 15, 1 Penne. 15, 1897 Del. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridings-v-mcmenamin-delsuperct-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack