Ridings v. McMenamin

39 A. 463, 17 Del. 15, 1 Penne. 15, 1897 Del. LEXIS 25
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided October 2, 1897·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

39 A. 463 (Ridings v. McMenamin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garboctowski v. State
123 A. 395 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1923)
State v. Henry
105 A. 849 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1918)
Ownbey v. Morgan
105 A. 838 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1917)